Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to reopen negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for a new trade agreement with this country?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take immediate steps to enter into trade negotiations with Russia, with a view not only to diverting Russian trade from Germany to this country during the war, but also with a view to opening markets in Russia which will be invaluable to our export trade after the war?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether any recent negotiations have taken place with the Russian Government regarding the resumption of trade negotiations?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No negotiations have recently taken place with the Russian Government about a resumption of discussions on trade questions, but the subject was raised by the Soviet Ambassador lately in a conversation with my Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Price: Will His Majesty's Government bear in mind the very great importance of a trade agreement of this kind with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with the object of keeping important raw materials out of the orbit of our enemy?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, that very important aspect of the question, and other aspects, are at present having our urgent consideration.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what impression was made on the Foreign Secretary by the Soviet negotiations?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite clear to which set of negotiations the hon. Member refers, but I trust that in any negotiations that may be renewed they will not create an impression which is an unfavourable one.

Mr. A. Henderson: In the event of negotiations being resumed, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that His Majesty's Government, as representing the country, will condemn the aggression of Russia against Finland?

Mr. Butler: I think that can be taken for granted.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister when the British Ambassador will return to Moscow?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister when the British Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics hopes to be able to return to his post?

Mr. Butler: No date has at present been fixed for the return to Moscow of His Majesty's Ambassador, who is now on leave in this country.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate the necessity of having a representative at Moscow, particularly under present conditions?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly. We have an able representative there, although I would point out that His Majesty's Ambassador is having a long leave.

BRITISH SUBJECT'S IMPRISONMENT (MR. JOSEPH MARTIN).

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph Martin, of Brighton, is still suffering from blindness and other disabilities resulting from the brutal treatment he received during his imprisonment in Moscow by the Soviet Government without being charged with any offence and without trial; and, seeing that through the omission of His Majesty's Government to include a demand for compensation on Mr. Martin's behalf in the ultimatum to the Soviet Govern-


ment of 2nd May, 1923, although compensation was demanded and obtained in the only two other cases, Mr. Martin has been caused much additional hardship and suffering during the past 17 years, he will state exactly what was the alleged difficulty which prevented His Majesty's Government from demanding compensation on Mr. Martin's behalf on 2nd May, 1923, but which did not prevent the other two claims from being put forward on that date?

Mr. Butler: The decision not to put forward Mr. Martin's case was taken by the then Secretary of State in his discretion. I regret that I am not in a position to discuss the grounds upon which is was based.

Sir C. Rawson: If it is a fact that this was only one of three cases of personal injury, that the matter was investigated with the Soviet Government, and the amount of compensation agreed, can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why Mr. Martin's claim was omitted?

Mr. Butler: I regret to say that the decision was taken by the then Secretary of State and I am unable to give any reason for the decision.

Sir C. Rawson: Are not the Government responsible for the acts of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly, but I regret that I am unable at this stage to give any reason for the decision then taken by the Secretary of State. As I have informed the hon. Member before, we still reserve the right, and indeed we should be very glad, to forward Mr. Martin's case to the Soviet Government if we thought there was a suitable opportunity for the claim meeting with redress.

Sir C. Rawson: Could not the Government consider an ex gratia payment in view of their neglect to include Mr. Martin's case? On what ground was it omitted?

Mr. Butler: I have already answered the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, and I have already said that we will put forward the case if an opportunity arises. I regret that I cannot hold out any hopes of compensation from the Government.

Sir C. Rawson: rose—

Hon. Members: Order!

Sir C. Rawson: On a point of Order. I do not waste a lot of time of this House, but this is a matter practically of life and death to this man—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has already put several Supplementary Questions on this subject.

UNITED STATES AND POLAND (KELLOGG PACT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the breach by Germany of the Kellogg Pact, to which the United States of America was a party, in her attack on Poland, he will consider the advisability of making representations to the United States Government with a view to the cessation of the supply of materials vital for war purposes by the United States to Germany?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have already pointed out, in their communication to the League of Nations on 9th September, 1939, that the act of aggression of Germany against Poland was committed in disregard of the obligations which the German Government had assumed towards Poland and the other signatories of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 27th August, 1928. But the hon. Member will be aware that this Treaty does not contain any provision for the procedure to be followed or the action to be taken in the event of its violation by one of the signatories. In any case His Majesty's Government do not consider that it is for them to make proposals to the United States Government as to how that Government should regard the violation by Germany of a treaty to which the United States are a party.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Government have communicated with the League of Nations on this subject, and that America is not a member, would it not be more effective for them to consider making a direct approach to the United States Government themselves, concerning a matter of which they were really the promoters?

Mr. Butler: I think we must allow the United States to decide its own attitude.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS' ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister to what extent members of, and the permanent staff of, the League of Nations will give assistance to Finland for the purposes of reconstruction; and whether he will give the terms of the Finnish Note to the League of 21st March on the subject?

Mr. Butler: I am arranging for the Note to be circulated in the Official Report. The Secretary-General has informed League members of the request of the Finnish Government for the continuation of material and humanitarian assistance. He has also expressed the willingness of the League Secretariat to continue to give all the assistance in their power. The reply of His Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General will follow the lines of the Prime Minister's statement on 19th March.

Following is the Note:

Letter from the Delegate of Finland to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Geneva, 21st March, 1940.

(Translation.)

"With reference to our conversation of 15th March, I again request you to accept the sincerest thanks of my Government for the assistance which the Secretariat of the League of Nations, under your direction, has been good enough to accord to Finland in consequence of the Assembly resolution of 14th December, 1939.

Under instructions from my Government, I have the honour to request you to inform the members of the League of Nations that Finland would be glad if this material and humanitarian assistance could be continued by the League of Nations, in order to bring about the complete restoration of the country as speedily as possible, with a view to guaranteeing its future.

(Signed) RUDOLF HOLSTI."

ALLIES' WAR SUPPLIES (RETURN).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state whether arrangements have been made for the return of the war materials that were sent to Finland?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

ALLIES' WAR AIMS.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to include in a statement of war aims an offer of federal union to the German people; and whether he is prepared to make the constructive plan the basis of the Government's propaganda, especially in the United States of America and all other neutral countries?

Mr. Butler: I am not at present prepared to add to the statements about war and peace aims which have been made by Members of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in the midst of the whole business, it is just about time we were discussing the idea of having peace by negotiation?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BULLETIN.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Bulletin of international news of 22nd March, 1940, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, pages 356–359, devoted to Palestine Land Transfer Regulations; whether he is aware that of three-and-a-half pages devoted to this subject, only 10 lines purport to sum up the views of His Majesty's Opposition as expressed in the recent Debate on Palestine, whilst one-and-a-half pages set out the Government case; and, in view of the fact that this House has recently voted funds towards the war budget of Chatham House, will he ensure that future reports by the council of Chatham House provide a fairer presentation of the views of all parties in this House as expressed in Debate?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the Bulletin of International News, which is one of the regular publications of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and has been issued for many years past. The organisation known as the Foreign Research and Press Service which performs certain war-time services for His Majesty's Government and receives the grant-in-aid is entirely separate in its administration and work from the permanent organisation of the Institute and has nothing to do with the publication of the Bulletin of International News.

Mr. Williams: As long as Treasury grants are made available to this Council, does the right hon. Gentleman not think a fairer representation of the general opinions in this House ought to be reported, if any reports are made at all?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the hon. Member has appreciated the distinction which I sought to draw in my original answer, that is, that this Bulletin is produced by a private department of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and that the Foreign Research and Press Service is the only part with which the Government have any official connection.

Mr. Leach: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the right of this society to use the word "Royal" is in order?

HEBREW NEWSPAPERS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Palestine Hebrew dailies, "Davar," "Haaretz," and "Hatzsfe," were not permitted to resume publication until 25th March, although the permits were re-issued on 2nd March?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have no information about this matter, but am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he made a specific statement on 2nd March that permits had been re-issued, and if they were not issued until about three weeks later will he ascertain why his information was not as accurate as it might have been?

Mr. MacDonald: This point had not been brought to my notice until the hon. Member put down his Question, I think yesterday, and I am telegraphing for information as soon as it is possible to get it.

Mr. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire into the reasons why the Hebrew weekly "Hafsel Hatzair," organ of the Palestine Labour party, published at Tel-Aviv, was prohibited on 20th March for printing in its issue of 1st March, the statement of the Jewish National Council of Palestine, Vaad Leumi, against the Land Transfer Regulations; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no-information about this matter, but am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

Mr. Williams: While the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a report from the High Commissioner will he ask whether this was an intended belated attack on the Labour party?

Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly ask that, but I think I can already give the answer in the negative.

UNITED STATES (FOREIGN POLICY).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have now received information of the contents of the memorandum setting out the essentials of the foreign policy of the United States, which was handed by Mr. Welles, President Roosevelt's envoy, to the French Prime Minister; and whether His Majesty's Government are in agreement with the views of the United States Government as expressed therein?

Mr. Butler: I presume that the hon. and learned Member refers to the memorandum on the foreign economic policy of the United States, communicated on 9th March by Mr. Sumner Welles to the French Minister of Finance, who was at that time M. Paul Reynaud. His Majesty's Government were not given any similar document by Mr. Welles, but the French Government have communicated to them the text of their memorandum. The French Government issued an official communiquéthe following day, stating that M. Paul Reynaud, after consulting the President of the Council, had conveyed to Mr. Sumner Welles the French Government's complete agreement to the principles set forth in the memorandum. His Majesty's Government share these views.

LIBYA (ITALIAN TROOPS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any modification of the Anglo-Italian agreement relating to the number of Italian troops stationed in Libya; and whether he can state the number of Italian troops stationed there?

Mr. Butler: There has been no modification in the terms of the agreement.


The information exchanged between the British and Italian Governments in conformity with Annex 2 of the agreement is confidential. I am not therefore in a position to give any figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

FLYING CLUBS.

Lord Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the activities of the civil flying clubs started before the war have now come to an end, and that these premises, aerodromes and machines are, in most cases, lying idle and deteriorating through disuse; that the civil air guard organisation initiated by his Department two years ago has been allowed to disintegrate; and whether he will consider making use of this wasted potential for the increase of gliding, soaring and small-powered glider-flying activities on the lines followed by Germany after 1920?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am aware of the cessation of the activities of civil flying clubs and of the civil air guard organisation, to which my Noble Friend refers, but this is an inevitable sequel to the limitations imposed by defence considerations upon civil flying during war. Most of the aircraft owned by the clubs have already been requisitioned for the Royal Air Force or have been earmarked for requisitioning. With regard to the last part of the Question, it is not practicable to include gliding in the syllabus of training for pilots for the Royal Air Force, but the possibility of including it in the facilities for organised recreation is under consideration.

Lord Apsley: Is there not a great deal of difference between requisitioning and earmarking; is it not the case that a large number of these privately-owned machines are still lying rusting in their hangars; and cannot some use be made of these machines as well as of the large number of pilots who would like to have the opportunity of flying?

Sir S. Hoare: That is not my information, but I will look into my Noble Friend's point.

GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Lord Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the

fact that civil aviation is now much restricted and centralised in the hands of one combine, he will, in the interests of economy and efficiency, consider the abolition of the Department of Civil Aviation so that the corporations concerned in the combine may pursue their activities unhampered by restrictions except those imposed by military or naval exigencies; and whether, in order to secure speedy and complete co-operation between the military and civil authorities, he will appoint Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm liaison officers to sit on the boards of the corporations concerned?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to adopt my Noble Friend's suggestion. The Department of Civil Aviation has many important responsibilities, including the administration of statutory orders and regulations under the Air Navigation Acts governing the flight of all civil aircraft to, over and from this country, and of United Kingdom aircraft wherever they may be. The Department is also charged with the administration of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, and the various conventions and agreements to which this country is a party relating to international air navigation. I should add that the staff has already been reduced in proportion to the diminution of work falling on the Civil Aviation Department since the outbreak of war.

Lord Apsley: Is it intended to keep on this Department in spite of the fact, from what my right hon. Friend has said, that it appears to be somewhat redundant? Would it be possible to give it a constructive role instead of the role it has had up to now, which is mainly destructive?

Sir S. Hoare: I would always wish that every part of the Air Ministry's organisation should be constructive and not destructive.

CITY AIRPORT SCHEME.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will inquire into the rotary elevated city airport scheme, particulars of which have been sent to him?

Sir S. Hoare: The scheme referred to has been examined in its several technical aspects but I regret that it was not considered to be practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PRESS INFORMATION (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, following on the admission to the National Union of Journalists last month that the supply of information to the Press in Scotland on Air Force matters is not altogether satisfactory, any steps have been taken to implement the promise given at that time to improve the position?

Sir S. Hoare: The arrangements for the supply of information to the Press in Scotland on Air Force matters are under review, and it is hoped to introduce improved arrangements very shortly.

ACCIDENT INQUIRIES.

Mr. Richards: asked the Secretary of State for Air what precautions are usually taken in the case of a flying accident in this country to see that the aeroplane is not in any way interfered with before an expert has had an opportunity of examining it; what steps are taken to collect all the information available as to the probable cause of the disaster, and to see that the dead bodies are dealt with with every respect?

Sir S. Hoare: Notification of an accident to an aircraft is normally received from the local police, who take immediate steps to prevent unauthorised interference with the wreckage. If a Royal Air Force aircraft is concerned, the officer commanding the nearest Royal Air Force unit posts a guard over the wreckage and arranges for the erection, where necessary, of a temporary rope fence and screen. All flying accidents involving fatalities to Royal Air Force personnel are the subject of official inquiry, including, where necessary, independent investigation by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. Investigation of accidents to civil aircraft is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations, 1922 and 1925. The arrangements which are made for the guarding of the wreckage by the police and by Royal Air Force personnel are designed to ensure that due respect is shown to the dead.

Mr. Richards: Is the Minister aware that in the case of a recent accident none of these precautions was taken and that both the machine and the bodies were for a time a public exhibition? If I give

the right hon. Gentleman particulars will he see that an inquiry is made?

Sir S. Hoare: I should be surprised if that were the case, but I will certainly look into it if the hon. Member will send me particulars.

COAL STOCKS (STATIONS).

Captain Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether steps will be taken to enable as many stations as possible to lay in a reserve stock of coal during the summer months?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir.

DE HAVILLAND TIGER MOTH AEROPLANES.

Lord Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the price at which De Havilland Tiger Moths were being sold to the Air Ministry and civil training schools in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and the price charged for them in 1939–40; whether this price includes all accessories; the value of such accessories; and whether these machines are still being purchased for service training in the United Kingdom and Dominions?

Sir S. Hoare: It is a long-standing practice to regard contract prices as confidential, and I regret therefore that I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first and second parts of the Question. As regards the last part of the Question, De Havilland Tiger Moths are still being purchased for service training in this country and in the Dominions.

Lord Apsley: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell me whether the price of these machines is roughly double the price of two years ago?

Sir S. Hoare: No. Sir, exactly the opposite is the case. The latest price is a great deal lower than it was two years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICIAL REPORT, PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (ISSUE TO SHIPS).

Commander King-Hall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange for the issue, for an experimental period of three months, of a copy of the Official Report to all His Majesty's ships and vessels with a complement of more than 300 officers and men, with a view to ascertaining, through


a report from commanding officers, whether a regular issue of the Official Report would be appreciated in ward-rooms, gun-rooms, warrant officers' and lower-deck messes?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor War render): I appreciate the advantages of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal, but owing to the fact that ships are at sea for considerable periods copies of the Official Report would be received on board at irregular intervals and after considerable delay; under these conditions I do not think that the supply would be of value.

Mr. Denville: Has not the Navy enough to put up with already?

DUTCH VESSEL "VREDE" (ARREST).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a Dutch collier has been placed under military control at Vielsen, on the North Sea canal, when found to be carrying electro-magnetic mines for the purpose of laying in the fairway of an English harbour; and whether a full investigation will be pressed for?

Sir V. Warrender: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the case of the Dutch vessel "Vrede" which was recently placed under arrest at Ymuiden. The vessel was examined by the Dutch naval authorities who after investigation were apparently satisfied as to her innocence. She was therefore released.

COASTGUARD SERVICE (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that a coastguard in a West Coast district had a German submarine under his telescope for 7½ minutes, but that as he could not telephone direct to an aerodrome, which was only two miles away, the submarine submerged before aircraft arrived; and whether, to secure the fullest co-operation between those who are keeping watch on the coasts and the Royal Air Force, he will secure, as far as possible, direct communication between aerodromes and coastguards and other observers?

Sir V. Warrender: My attention has been called to this case and the arrangements by which reports of enemy vessels are made by coastguards are being reviewed.

Mr. Williams: Do I understand from the reply that the telephonic communications in future will be substantially better than they have been in the past?

Sir V. Warrender: So far as this case showed that the present arrangments were not perfect they are being reviewed.

MANDATED TERRITORIES (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in all British mandated territories held by British self-governing dominions British nationality is conferred on the inhabitants of the former upon application, but this is not so in some of the British mandated territories held by the United Kingdom as in the cases of Tanganyika and Palestine where qualified inhabitants desiring British citizenship must possess five years residence in a neighbouring Colony like Kenya or Cyprus; and whether steps will be taken to remove such anomalies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that under the legislation of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa provision exists whereby in the case of Western Samoa and South-West Africa, respectively, certificates of naturalisation for local purposes only may be granted to residents in these mandated territories. As regards the second part of the Question, as the hon. Member is aware, His Majesty's Government were on the outbreak of war considering the introduction of legislation which, if passed, would enable residents in certain mandated territories to become eligible for naturalisation as British subjects. Whether such legislation should be introduced during the war is now under consideration.

WEST AFRICA (GIN AND RUM IMPORTS).

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the arrangement entered into at the native's desire that there should be a reduction of 10 per


cent. each year over a period of years in the importation of gin and rum into West Africa, there has recently been an increase in the importation of both gin and rum into that country; and whether he will have inquiries made into this breach of a settled compact, and give orders that the arrangement of a 10 per cent. reduction each year shall be compulsorily observed?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in December, 1939, 150,000 imperial gallons of gin were authorised by the Governor of the Gold Coast for importation into that country; and, as this was contrary to the agreement made with the native chiefs in 1931, that by 1940 imports of gin should cease altogether, will he state the reason for which the Governor saw fit to break this agreement?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Coat bridge (Mr. Barr) on 21st February, from which it will be seen that there has been no breach of agreement. The recent amendment of the law, which incidentally does not refer to rum, has been made with the approval of the African members of the Legislative Council and would appear to be in accord with public opinion.

Dr. Little: Has this breach of an enactment solemnly entered into the consent and concurrence of the Colonial Office?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, and of the African representatives of the Legislative Council.

UGANDA-KENYA RAILWAY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the finances and incidence of liability as between the Imperial and Kenya Governments with respect to the Uganda-Kenya Railway have now been settled; and whether a statement upon the same will be made to the House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As I informed the House on 15th February, 1939, it has been decided to invite Parliament to agree to the remission, subject to one condition which has been accepted by the local authorities, of the claim for £5,500,000 in respect of the original cost of construction of the Kenya-Uganda railway.

Mr. Adams: When will that be submitted to the House?

Mr. MacDonald: I hope at an early date.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why troops on Wednesday last opened fire on Africans engaged in an industrial dispute on the Nkana copper mines in Northern Rhodesia and killed 14 natives and wounded 20 others; who was responsible for this; and what action he proposes to take?

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what casualties have occurred among strikers in the Northern Rhodesian copper mines as the result of police action; where and when they occurred; and what is the number of persons killed or wounded?

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the demands of the workers for improved conditions at the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia;
(2) whether he has any information about the trouble in Northern Rhodesia when troops fired on strikers at the copper mines in the Nkana Concession and 14 natives were killed and 20 wounded?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The House will have learnt with deep regret of the disturbances which occurred on the Copper-belt in Northern Rhodesia on the 3rd April, when it became necessary for troops to fire upon a large crowd of strikers who were employing violence, and a number of people were killed and injured. As it is impossible to deal, within the limits of an oral answer, with the circumstances attending this unhappy affair, I am circulating a full statement dealing with all the points raised by the hon. Members in the Official Report.
I am glad to be able to add that there have been no further disturbances since 3rd April, and that the strikers have returned to work. A commission of inquiry into the disturbances will be appointed at an early date, and I am now in communication with the Governor as to its composition and terms of reference.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask that there shall be the most searching inquiry into the whole of this incident? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why unarmed strikers were fired on for no fewer than six minutes; why peaceful picketing was interfered with; why this dispute went on for 17 days with very little being done to reach an agreement so far as the men's genuine grievances were concerned?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the first part of the question, the answer is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the answer is given fully in the reply which I will circulate. With regard to the third part, it is not true that peaceful picketing was interfered with but only picketing with intimidation was interfered with. With regard to the fourth part, it is not true that this strike went on for 17 days without anything being done. I think the hon. Member is confusing this strike, which lasted only a very few days, with an earlier strike which had been settled the week before.

Mr. Paling: Did the men go back with any improvement of their conditions or were they forced back to the conditions against which they struck?

Mr. MacDonald: There was no question of forcing the men back. They are receiving some increase in pay which the companies announced before the strike actually began, but that increase does not meet anything like the full demands of the strikers.

Mr. Paling: If 14 men are killed and many injured is not that forcing them back?

Mr. Leach: Does this firing on strikers meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval?

Following is the statement:

On the 18thMarch a strike was called at the Mufulira mine by the European workers, who had presented the management with a number of demands, covering rates of pay and conditions of employment. On the 21st March the European employés at the Nkana mine also came out on strike. Following intervention by the local Government, conciliation proceedings were instituted and a settlement was reached on all the points at issue save that relating to increased rates of pay per shift, and it was agreed

by both parties that this should be submitted to arbitration. Work at the mines recommenced on the 27th March.

The African workers in the mines were not directly concerned in this strike, though as a consequence of it most of them were not able to go to work. But two days later the Governor of Northern Rhodesia reported that the African employésat the Mufulira and Nkana mines had declared a strike and were demanding increased rates of pay. Some 15,000 workers were affected. The managements of all the mines had announced an all-round increase in pay for African workers of 2s. 6d. per monthly ticket, but, while this announcement was well received at some of the mines, the African employés at the Nkana and Mufulira mines demanded the payment of wages at rates between 5s. and 10s. a day.

The Government sent the Secretary for Native Affairs to the seat of the trouble, and with others he did everything that he could to assist in bringing about a settlement. But the strike was accompanied by some violence and intimidation: and the Governor found it necessary not only to call out the European Defence Forces at Mufulira and Nkana, but also to approve the despatch of two companies of the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, one to each place.

It was made clear that this action was taken simply with the object of supplementing the local police forces in their work of maintaining law and order in a threatening situation. In spite of these precautions acts of violence continued, and on the 3rd April a crowd of about 3,000 strikers attacked the mine compound office at Nkana, where some 150 Africans who had remained at work were drawing pay. The police attempted to prevent the crowd from making this attack, and resorted to the use of tear gas in the hope that more drastic measures would not be necessary.

This, however, proved ineffective. After repeated warnings had been given and several injuries inflicted on the police and troops by rocks and other missiles thrown by the strikers, the crowd charged and the officer in command of the troops was compelled to order the troops to fire. I deeply regret that in this unhappy affair two British officers and 18 African


privates of the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, and four European and seven African members of the North Rhodesian police were injured and that 13 of the strikers were killed and 71 wounded, of whom four have since died. At the request of the Governor, 200 troops were sent subsequently from Southern Rhodesia. That night some further violence occurred in the compound, where the property of the compound native staff and some huts were burnt. Since the 3rd April, there have, however, been no further disturbances.

It was with deep regret that I received the Governor's telegram reporting that these disturbances had occurred. I am satisfied however on the information that I have received that both police and troops acted with considerable restraint and that it was only after grave provocation and when they were in imminent danger of being overpowered by the crowd that the order was given to the troops to open fire.

I have now received information from the Governor that the strikers have returned to work and that the companies are paying the 2s. 6d. per ticket extra referred to above. A commission of inquiry into the disturbances will be set up at an early date, and I am now in consultation with the Governor regarding its composition and terms of reference. I am also in consultation with him regarding other steps which may be taken to foster amicable relations between the employers and the employed, and to avoid such events in the future.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the wages of the workers at the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia; and the profits of the companies concerned?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is necessarily long and contains a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Paling: Have these wages been increased as a result of the strike?

Mr. MacDonald: I have said in answer to an earlier Supplementary Question that there have been certain increases, which had been announced by the companies before the strike actually began.

Following is the answer:

With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I am giving to-day to a Question by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Dr. Guest), and in which particulars are given of the rates of wages paid to the African mineworkers at the Nkana and Mufulira mines. I have the following additional information with regard to other mines:

At the Roan Antelope Mine the wages for underground native workers start at 22s. 6d. per monthly ticket plus a bonus of 11s. 3d. Increments of 2s. 6d. are paid approximately every six months, and the wages rise to 40s. plus a bonus of 11s. 3d. The wages for surface labourers start at 12s. 6d. plus a bonus of 2s. 6d. and rise by 1s. 3d. every three months up to 27s. 6d. plus a bonus of 2s. 6d. These rates have now been increased by the 2s. 6d. war bonus approved last week. Free housing and water are provided. The following free rations are provided each week: 4 lb. of meat, 14 oz. of cooked sausages, 14 lb. of meal, 28 oz. of beans, 3½ lb. of fish when available, 49 oz. of nuts, 35 oz. of vegetables, 28 oz. of fat, fruit as available, 3½oz. of salt, 42 oz. of bread, and, in addition, 70 oz. of cocoa or soup for underground workers. Their families also receive free mealies.

At the Ncanga Mine wages and conditions are as follow: Underground workers start at 22s. 6d. per monthly ticket, with increases of 2s. 6d. every six tickets up to 37s. 6d., then with increases of 2s. 6d. after every nine tickets up to 45s. and then with increases of 2s. 6d. after every 12 tickets. No maximum is fixed. The highest rate now paid is £5. These rates have now been increased by the addition of a war bonus of 2s. 6d. An additional bonus of 2s. 6d. per ticket is paid to holders of blasting certificates. In addition, there are four grades of bonus awards on merit—7s. 6d., 15s., 22s. 6d. and 30s. per ticket—and 60 per cent. of underground workers receive such bonuses. Some clothing and blankets are issued free on first appointment. Short leave is granted freely. When a worker leaves employment and returns after a specified time he is re-engaged at the same rate of pay. A leave bonus of 1s. per ticket is granted after 18 tickets. Surface workers start at 12s. 6d. per monthly ticket with in-


crements of 2s. 6d. after every six tickets up to 25s., then with increments of 2s. 6d. after every nine tickets up to 32s. 6d. and then with increments of 2s. 6d. for every 12 tickets. No maximum is fixed. The highest wage now paid is 125s. To the above rates should be added the recently granted war bonus of 2s. 6d. per ticket. In addition, there are four grades of bonus awards on merit—2s. 6d., 5s., 7s. 6d. and 10s. per ticket. Blankets are issued free on first appointment. Leave is the same as for underground workers. The following food rations are provided each week for both underground and surface workers:

10½ lb. of meal, 4 oz. of fat, 2½s lb. of meat, 1¾ lb. of beans, 7 oz. of nuts, 3½oz. of salt. The families of the workers receive mealies and meat. In addition, the workers receive daily a 5 oz. loaf of bread, a cup of cocoa, and a cooked sausage. Free accommodation is provided.

As regards the European employés, I have the following information in respect of the Mufulira mine. The rate of wages per eight-hour shift for European daily workers varies in the Mining Department from 20s. for underground learners to 25s. for grizzlymen and skipmen, to 30s. for shaft sinkers, with other intermediate rates. Main hoist drivers receive 30s. and intermediate hoist drivers 26s. Surface metallurgical plant rates vary from 20s. for handymen to 24s. for crusher and smelter operators to30s. for crusher fitter chargehands. Rates for tradesmen and others are, for improvers 22s., for locomotive drivers 26s. and for carpenters and fitters 28s. These are basic wages and for underground men may be subject to increases calculated on footage rates. Overtime rates are on a 1¼ time basis. Pensions and a cash bonus fund have also been established. Housing is provided at a moderate rate of approximately £3 a month for married men. There is a compulsory subscription for membership of a first-class social and sports club of 21s. per annum which is deducted by monthly instalments. Daily paid workers are subject to a day's notice.

I have no detailed information regarding the wages earned by the European workers at the other mines, but I understand that they are generally similar to those obtaining at Mufulira. The above rates and conditions have to some extent

been modified as a result of the recent conciliation and arbitration proceedings.

As regards the second part of the Question, the following are the figures given in the published accounts of the mining companies concerned. These profits are of course subject to taxation, which has recently been increased. The accounts of the Mufulira Copper Mines, Limited, show a net profit for the year ended 30th June, 1939, of £1,041,431. The estimated profit for the six months ended 31st December, 1939, is £632,500. The published accounts of the Roan Antelope Copper Mines, Limited, show a net profit for the year ended 30th June, 1939, of £1,372,204. The estimated profit for the six months ended 31st December, 1939, is £813,000. The published accounts of the Rhokana Corporation, Limited, show a net profit for the year ended 30th June, 1939, but after providing for debenture interest, depreciation and development reserve of £2,116,398. The estimated net profit for the six months ended 31st December, 1939, but after providing for debenture interest, depreciation and development reserve is £1,229,000. The published accounts of the Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines, Limited, issued for the year ended 31st March, 1939, show that the company is not yet making a profit.

TRINIDAD (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY).

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, now the three years' period has expired, it is the intention of the Government of Trinidad to hand the control of the electricity board to the Port of Spain City Council, or whether it is the intention of the Government to develop an island-wide scheme under their own control?

Mr. M. MacDonald: In the Trinidad Electricity Board Ordinance, No. 39 of 1935, no period is specified during which the Government is required to exercise the right of purchasing the whole or part of the undertaking for the purpose of establishing an island-wide supply of electricity. Consideration of the question of establishing such a scheme under Government control was temporarily deferred on the outbreak of war, but I understand that it will be further examined at a later date.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL POPULATION.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to what action His Majesty's Government propose taking on the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Silkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the question of the distribution of the industrial population will be a vital matter immediately after the war, and is it not a matter which we ought to consider now?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that there are other more important and more vital things to be considered at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

SMALL MANUFACTURERS.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among small businesses at the Ministry's inability to formulate a policy to employ them; and whether he will receive a deputation of hon. Members to urge their claims and to press for their representation upon bodies so far filled mainly by the representatives of big business?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): Yes, Sir. I am aware that there is some dissatisfaction amongst small businesses which are not receiving war contracts. Many of these firms are not in a position to supply stores required by my Department, but every endeavour is constantly being made to place work among the small manufacturers whose capacity is suited to the Ministry's requirements. I shall of course be ready to receive a deputation from hon. Members on the subject if they so desire.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in the present emergency he is not neglecting any possible means of producing supplies and that he will avail himself of all the machinery at his disposal?

Mr. Burgin: That is certainly my desire, and I do not think that either the House or the country has any idea yet of the extent to which the small manufacturers are being used.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman said in his broadcast that there would be a place for the small manufacturers, and has not that led to a good deal of heart-burning among people who really thought he meant what he said?

Mr. Burgin: I meant what I said. There are small manufacturers being added to the list of Government contractors every single day.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend hear me? I want the little man to have a square deal.

LIGHT CASTING TRADE, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Cassells: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that many Scottish foundries engaged normally in the light casting trade are faced with considerable depression and unemployment due to the Government's present housing policy; that the machinery in many of these establishments is ill-equipped to meet contracts for the manufacture of armaments; and is he prepared to afford assistance, financial or otherwise, to such firms in order to accord Scotland, and in particular Stirlingshire, a fair share of work in the Government's present war effort?

Mr. Burgin: So far as possible, opportunity is taken to utilise available manufacturing capacity in suitable works either by financial assistance where necessary or by way of provision of plant, but there are extreme difficulties in turning over foundries to armament work without incurring heavy capital expenditure, which may not in all cases be justified. The particular claims of Stirlingshire will, with other districts, continue to receive consideration in the allotment of suitable Government work.

Mr. Cassells: Is the Minister aware of the very highly potential productive capacity of Falkirk and district, and, if not, does he intend to make any investigations there through the medium of his Department?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the potential manufacturing possibilities of Falkirk, but they are mostly for cast-iron, and the demands of modern war are nearly all for steel, very little cast-iron being required. If it is possible for me to use the Falkirk cast-iron industry at all I shall be happy to do so, and one of the representatives of the National Union of Foundry Workers is a member of the area committee for that district.

Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware of the very serious concern on the part of employers, workmen, and the local authorities in that district at the growing volume of unemployment, and will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to meeting a joint deputation from those bodies to discuss ways and means of giving effect to the desire of the Falkirk district to help in the great work of production?

Mr. Burgin: I would, of course, willingly discuss with my right hon. colleague any of the matters to which the hon. Member referred, but it is not a question for me to find employment. My primary duty is to find supplies. The difficulty of an iron foundry, if cast-iron is not wanted, must be apparent to the House, and what I am endeavouring to do is to see whether a number of small parts of engineering stores hitherto made from steel can, with modern manufacturing possibilities, be made from cast-iron; but it is not an easy turnover problem.

Mr. Maxton: Do you ever think of making stoves for Army huts?

TIMBER.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that between 1st October, 1939, and 10th February, 1940, 3,098 standards of imported timber were released to distillers in Scotland for the production of packing-cases; and whether he will take steps to confer with the interests referred to with a view to alternative methods of packing being found and so release this timber for housing in Scotland?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am afraid, however, that the wood in question, which consists of boxboards, could not be used for building. Ninety per cent. of the wood was used in packing whisky for export, principally to the United States of America. The question of alternative

methods of packing, while it presents difficulties, is still under discussion between the distillers and the Economy Branch of the Timber Control.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future any imports of timber come in a form suitable for building, in view of the fact that the amount of timber referred to in this Question would have satisfied the requirements of 1,000 Scottish houses?

Mr. Burgin: We want all kinds of timber, and I do not propose to shut out the importation of boxboards, which have a separate use.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CALVES (PRICES).

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that under the present scale of payment for calves the animal must be 100 lb. in weight to obtain 11d. a lb.; and whether, in view of the fact that calves of excellent quality often only reach 80 lb., he will consider a grade somewhere between 7d. and 11d. a lb.?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The price of first quality veal calves has been 1s.3d. per lb. since the introduction of control, and the minimum weight for this grade of calf was put at 100 lb. Since 18th March calves of 90 lb. or over, and in the case of the smaller breeds, of a few pounds less, can be graded as first quality, and there has been no minimum weight limit for second quality veal calves which are purchased by the Ministry at 11d. per lb. The price for third quality veal calves was increased to 9d. per lb. on that date.

RATIONING.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of persons engaged in local food offices whose chief occupation is that of dealing with the registration of consumers at particular shops; and what is the approximate annual cost of this part of the work of rationing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The volume of work relating to the registration of consumers depends mainly on the number of temporary and permanent removals and


therefore varies widely from area to area. We should need a very large staff to make an estimate of the number of staff engaged on this work.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why he requires shopkeepers to count, and his staff to check, 100,000,000 coupons per week in respect of the rationing of bacon and butter, so long as the permitted ration is in excess of the normal consumption of a large proportion of the people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The counting of coupons by shopkeepers is optional, but it is of material assistance to food control committees if the numbers of coupons forwarded to them are indicated on the packets. I cannot accept the implication that the circumstances mentioned in the last part of the Question would justify a general relaxation of control.

MILK.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in forming the consultative committee to further the better use of home-produced foods, full advantage will be taken of the experience gained by the National Milk Publicity Council during many years of successful work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend can be assured that my Noble Friend will avail himself of the experience of the National Milk Publicity Council, in the movement for giving guidance on the use of food.

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take steps to prevent future supplies of milk being endangered by the slaughter on a large scale of milch cows and calves; and whether he is aware that the prices charged for the carcases of these beasts is in many cases as high as that of best quality beef?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no evidence of any unusual slaughter of cows and calves at the present time. The prices charged for the great majority of cow carcases are lower than those for best quality beef, although, for a relatively small number of best quality cow carcases and for carcases of veal, the prices charged are equal to the price for best quality beef.

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that many thousands of gallons of milk are sold at less than 6d. per gallon for the manufacture of chocolate, etc., while the price to the domestic consumer is 7d. per quart, and that this price is too high for the working classes to pay; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The price of milk paid by confectionery manufacturers was raised on 1st April to 1s. 1½d. per gallon as compared with a pre-war price of 7½d. per gallon.

BARLEY MEAL.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there are many districts in the country where barley meal is unobtainable, or where corn merchants can only obtain 10 per cent. of their normal pre-war deliveries; whether he will give an assurance that this is not being occasioned by the utilisation of barley meal for cakes or compound mixtures; and whether, since the outbreak of the war, these cakes and cubes are to be considered as balanced rations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not possible, in existing circumstances, to ensure that supplies of maize and barley will be available in their pre-war proportions at all times and in all parts of the country. Where supplies of barley have been ex-ecptionally short, the deficiency has been made up by supplies of maize. The shortage of barley meal is not due to its use in compounds; maize rather than barley has been allocated for that purpose. With regard to the last part of the Question, all the provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act are still in force.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that a complete overhaul of the present system of distribution is taking place and that he will be able to give us some statement about a final decision in these matters, because the present position is not satisfactory?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The position is constantly being improved.

Viscountess Astor: Has the shortage of barley anything to do with the increased consumption of beer?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Brewers are not producing more; the amount is the same as last year.

Viscountess Astor: I do not know as much about beer as you do.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. Is it right for a Member to impute motives?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately I did not catch the remark.

Viscountess Astor: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was imputing knowledge and not motives?

Mr. George Griffiths: Has not the Minister more knowledge of margarine than of beer?

MEAT (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, owing to the scarcity of mutton and lamb, which is being keenly felt in Northern Ireland at the moment, and the abundance of both in Britain, he will arrange for a time, until the supply becomes normal again, that the requirements of Northern Ireland be met by assigning to it a portion of the available New Zealand mutton and lamb?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that a temporary shortage of mutton has been experienced in Northern Ireland but that ample supplies of other forms of fresh meat have been, and are, available. My Noble Friend has given consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion that supplies of mutton should be diverted to Northern Ireland, but I feel that such a course would not be justified in war-time, particularly as there is every reason to anticipate that the shortage will be temporary.

Dr. Little: Could my hon. Friend not divert even a small quantity of mutton for a few weeks until the supply comes, because in Northern Ireland we have had practically no mutton for weeks and weeks?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In war-time, transport is so important that we do not feel that that course could be justified.

Sir William Davison: Is it not a fact that the troops in France are suffering

from an undue supply of beef and that they would appreciate a supply of mutton and lamb?

Mr. Logan: Does the Minister not think it possible that Northern Ireland might have a more friendly relationship with Eire in this matter?

Dr. Little: That has nothing to do with mutton.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that the farmers of Northern Ireland are not being furnished with the dead weight of the fat cattle sold by them, he will arrange that the grading of these animals is no longer carried out as at present by a single individual, a veterinary officer, from whose decision there is no appeal, but that, in order to put an end to the prevailing dissatisfaction among cattle raisers in Northern Ireland, this work will be done in future by a panel of three graders, a veterinary officer, a farmer, and an auctioneer, as in Great Britain?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be carefully considered.

RATIONED FOOD HOARDING.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he is contemplating any action to prevent food-hoarding by retailers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Machinery for controlling retailers' stocks of rationed foods already exists under the rationing scheme. In the case of unrationed foods I think it is desirable that reasonable stocks should be held, but if evidence were forthcoming that retailers were accumulating unreasonably large stocks, it might be necessary to take action such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister satisfied that no such unreasonably large stocks are being accumulated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At this moment, yes.

MEAT SUPPLY, BURNLEY.

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Burnley area received


only £8,000 worth of meat per week for a population of 176,000, while nearby areas have received in comparison twice the amount, namely, £2,000 worth for a population of less than 25,000; can he give any reason for this; and will he see that the area receives more adequate and better quality supplies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The aggregate value of the buying permits of the butchers in the Burnley area is £8,737; that of the butchers in the neighbouring area of Rawtenstall and Bacup is £3,300. The meat purchased by butchers in these areas in the three weeks ended 29th March averaged £6,682 and £2,272 respectively per week. The butchers' permits are based upon their registrations; their purchases are based upon the demands made upon them within the limit of their permits. The population of a district does not necessarily determine the butchers' registrations in that district since the public often purchase in districts other than that in which they reside. I can assure the hon. Member that the Burnley area is being treated fairly in regard to both the quantity or quality of the meat with which it is supplied.

SUGAR (FRUIT PRESERVING)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in connection with the provision of sugar and supply of fruit for preserving, he will take steps to ensure that householders are allowed to buy sufficient quantities of both sugar and fruit, in order to avoid such waste of fruit, both home-grown in private gardens, and by market and nursery gardeners?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Inquiry is being made to ascertain the demand for sugar from persons who wish to preserve fruit grown in their own gardens or allotments. When the information is available, my Noble Friend will be in a position to say whether it is practicable to make a special allowance of sugar to persons who buy home-grown fruit for preserving.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not of the utmost importance that as much fruit as possible should be preserved this year and not wasted, and does my hon. Friend realise that Evesham is particularly affected in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware of the importance of the matter.

Mr. John Morgan: Is there any doubt that there will be sugar available to the small fruit-grower?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Any doubt will be resolved as soon as we get information of the amount needed for home-produced fruit.

Mr. Morgan: Is a census being made in connection with the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have information as to the possible supplies.

MEAT CONTROL, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the complaint of local authorities in Scotland regarding the lack of co-operative effort and consultation between the Ministry and the authorities in connection with the Meat Control Scheme and the method of distribution; and whether action is to be taken to remove the cause of this complaint?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of the complaints referred to in the first part of the Question. If the hon. Member will send me particulars, I will look into the matter.

MILITARY SERVICE (RESERVED OCCUPATIONS).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has recommended that slaughtermen and cutters be placed in the reserved list of occupations; and whether he can state the approximate date when a decision will be made on this important matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Slaughtermen and butchers' cutters are already on the reserved list of occupations for reservation at age 30. I presume the hon. Member refers to the proposal that the age of reservation of slaughtermen and cutters should be reduced from 30 to 25. If so, I would refer him to the replies which he received from my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour on 7th March. As regards the second part of the Question, it is hoped that a decision will be reached very shortly.

NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the report for which he asked, regarding the increases in charges proposed by the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company; and what action he proposes to take?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): Yes, Sir. The Electricity Commissioners have carefully examined the detailed estimates of income and expenditure, and supporting data, upon which the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, have based their increased charges. The Commissioners have advised me that they see no reason to take exception to the estimates, which make no provision for earning any dividend on the 6 per cent. cumulative preference shares of the company or any dividend on the ordinary shares. In all the circumstances, I do not see any grounds for intervening; I have, however, asked the Electricity Commissioners to review the position at the end of June.

Mr. Duncan: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, may I take it that the consumers of electricity under this company are not precluded from making representation, as was promised a few weeks ago, in regard to individual cases?

Captain Wallace: Certainly not. I shall be very glad to consider individual cases.

Sir Percy Harris: Could not arrangements be made to merge some of these small, inefficient companies into bigger units, so that consumers may get bigger and cheaper supplies?

Captain Wallace: That is an entirely different, and a very much larger, question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

EXCURSION TRAINS.

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Transport whether excursion trains are to be run at cheap fares during the summer season?

Captain Wallace: In war-time precedence must be given to the movement of Government and other essential traffics and the maintenance as far as possible of ordinary passenger services. The Govern-

ment, however, recognise the great importance of enabling workers to enjoy leisure and recreation, and it is intended to provide facilities at reduced fares so far as is compatible with the performance of the railways' primary duty. It is not yet possible to make any general announcement as to the arrangements which, subject to overriding requirements and the course of events, will be available for holiday travel during the summer months.

Mr. Levy: Does the Minister's answer imply that the prospect of excursion trains will be entirely ruled out?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir. I have said that it is hoped to provide facilities but it is not yet possible to make a definite announcement.

LIGHTING (EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that parts of the East Lancashire road, Liverpool to Manchester, are being taken up for the purpose of carrying lighting to the air-raid shelters; and whether he will have inquiries made to see if arrangements could be made with local authorities who share in the road to have the lighting of the road done at the same time and thus make one operation complete the whole?

Captain Wallace: I am aware that cables have been laid for the purpose of lighting air-raid shelters on certain parts of the East Lancashire Road. In normal circumstances I should agree that all pipes and cables should, wherever possible, be laid at the same time; and I should have been prepared to make a grant to the responsible lighting authorities towards the installation of an adequate lighting system on this Trunk Road. In present circumstances, however, I do not consider that it would be proper to incur expenditure on the laying of cables for a lighting installation.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister not aware that this is one of the best roads in the country and that it is constantly being taken up? Could not there be some co-ordination so that when any repairs have to be done everything can be done in one operation? A little co-ordination would help.

Captain Wallace: If I may say so, that appears to be the hon. Gentleman's same


Question, to which I have given an answer. In peace-time I should have said, "Yes," but at the moment I do not think it is possible to incur the additional capital expenditure.

OMNIBUS STOPPING PLACES, LONDON.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great and unnecessary hardship is being caused to users of the suburban lines of the Southern Railway, by reason of the drastic reduction in the services; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to an improvement in such services?

Captain Wallace: Owing to the demands made on the railways for the carriage of Government and other essential traffics, including coal, the suburban services have had to be reduced, but the reduction has been made so far as possible during the slack periods. The position is constantly under observation by the railways, and the existing services are being augmented whenever this can be done without interfering with the carriage of essential traffics.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Minister consider the possibility of increasing the average speed on the railways so that we may have more efficient service?

Captain Wallace: An increase in average speed on the railway would have repercussions on the amount of steel required for track maintenance.

OMNIBUS STOPPING PLACES, LONDON.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great hardship is caused to the travelling public of London through omnibuses, though not full, failing to stop at the official stopping places, particularly during the black-out; and whether he will make inquiries, with a view to this practice being stopped?

Captain Wallace: The London Passenger Transport Board have instructed their staff that buses must stop at all "compulsory" stops, and at "request" stops when there is accommodation available and passengers are waiting to be picked up. Any specific cases brought to the notice of the Board of refusal to stop in these circumstances are investigated and suitable action is taken.

Mr. Silkin: If I provide the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with some instances will he take the matter up?

Captain Wallace: Certainly. I will take them up with the Board.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (RESERVED SEATS).

Mr. Magnay: asked the Minister of Transport who are the persons who have seats reserved in London and North Eastern Railway trains during daytime?

Captain Wallace: From inquiries I have made it appears that seats have been reserved in London and North Eastern Railway trains for certain persons travelling on Government business with secret plans and documents. Accommodation is also reserved on occasion for mental patients, prisoners of war, military prisoners, and convicts and their escorts.

Mr. Denville: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of the mental cases, convict cases and other cases were actually Members of this House?

Mr. Logan: Does "M.P." stand for "Mental Patients"?

ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES.

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will specify the principal war schemes of road improvement and new construction on which it is proposed to spend in the current financial year £500,000 in respect of trunk roads and £1,000,000 by way of grant to highway authorities?

Captain Wallace: The sums in question represent provision for schemes which may during the current financial year become essential on the grounds of war requirements or urgent public need. No substantial schemes falling into the latter category are at present in contemplation. As regards the former, my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to publish details.

Sir R. Clarry: What are the reasons which make the giving of particulars of these schemes against the public interest?

Captain Wallace: If we decide to spend money on a particular military road it would be a pity to let certain people know where it is.

Mr. Thorne: But if the Government "pinch" so much of the public's money for such a purpose the public should have a right to know something about the highway.

WANDSWORTH BRIDGE.

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to open for traffic the reconstructed Wandsworth Bridge over the River Thames; and what progress has been made with the acquisition of property for the construction of the adjoining southern approach road for which a Road Fund grant has been promised of an estimated amount of £269,000?

Captain Wallace: I expect that the new Wandsworth Bridge will be opened in August. All the property necessary for widening the southern approach road to 60 feet between the bridge and York Road has been acquired.

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Transport what has become of the railway carriages which were used on the "Silver Jubilee," the "Coronation," and the "Pullman" trains; and why only the oldest carriages are in use now?

Captain Wallace: All the main line stock, new as well as old, is at present in use except the special carriage sets used on the "Silver Jubilee," "Coronation," "Pullman" and other high-speed trains. These sets provide less seating accommodation than the ordinary sets, and in present conditions it is necessary to provide the maximum seating accommodation on the reduced services which are now being operated.

LONDON-NEWCASTLE RAILWAY SERVICE.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the average length of time passenger trains from Newcastle to King's Cross have been late during the last six weeks?

Captain Wallace: During the last six weeks, owing to the very heavy loading on this route, I regret that the trains have been, on an average, half an hour late in reaching King's Cross.

Mr. Batey: Is the Minister taking any steps to try and get the trains to run more to time?

Captain Wallace: The company hope to be able to improve the running of these trains. Nobody will know better than the hon. Gentleman that the trouble on this line is due to the special coal trains, and it would be a pity to make alterations to the time-table if there is reasonable hope of getting the trains back again to punctual running on the present schedule.

Mr. A. Reed: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say where the special trains are going, because nobody knows?

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RAILWAYS.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Transport whether the recent agreement guaranteeing the profits of railway companies relieves the directors from responsibility for looking after the convenience of the travelling public using long-distance passenger trains?

Captain Wallace: The control which I exercise through the Railway Executive Committee was taken in order that the railways should be operated in accordance with urgent national requirements in war-time. These, on different occasions and in varying degrees, inevitably interfere with the convenience of passengers. The financial arrangements between the Government and the railway companies have no effect upon the position.

Mr. Batey: Is the Minister aware that the reduction which was made in the number of trains has caused considerable inconvenience to the public? When shall we be able to get back to the ordinary schedule?

Captain Wallace: I regret the inconvenience, and I hope we shall be able to get back to the ordinary service when we can do without these numbers of special coal trains.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any proposals to make for ensuring that compensation will be paid to persons injured by uninsured or non-stop drivers of motor vehicles?

Captain Wallace: As regards uninsured drivers, I regret that I am unable to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 31st January. As I then pointed out, the legislation to implement the report of the committee on


Compulsory Insurance presents great difficulties, and under existing conditions my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I cannot see our way to undertake it. The committee also considered the case of the non-stop and untraced driver, but did not think it practicable to recommend that the proposed Insurers' Central Fund should cover such cases.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that these innocent victims of aggression are still being unpaid, cannot the Minister confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether he can get some money to go on with?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

PUBLICATION "NOTEWORTHY."

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he will state the present circulation of the publication called "Noteworthy," to whom it is issued, its object, and the estimated annual cost?

The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): The circulation of "Noteworthy," originally 3,500 copies per week, is now 24,000, the increase being due to demand. It is sent to officials and members of political organisations and of voluntary societies. Its object is to provide information on the national war effort supplementary to ordinary news. On the present circulation, the annual cost of printing and despatch amounts to £2,373 and of postage to £6,175.

Mr. Mander: Could the right hon. Gentleman say who writes the publication, whether it is not the fact that "Speakers' Notes" are also issued and whether they do not to a very large extent cover the same ground?

Sir J. Reith: They cover the same ground to some extent but they have entirely different circulations. Although to some extent the same people may be occupied in compiling the two different publications, they are, I think, more engaged on one or the other separately.

Sir H. Williams: Could my right hon. Friend say what political organisations receive this publication?

Sir J. Reith: All sorts of political organisations.

Mr. Maxton: Would it be possible for this publication to come to all Members of the House of Commons?

Sir J. Reith: If the hon. Member would like to have it I should be delighted to provide him with it.

Mr. Maxton: I should like to see one copy first.

FOOD SITUATION (PUBLICITY).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that people in Great Britain are receiving from American friends parcels of food, including unrationed articles; and whether he will draw the attention of the London correspondents of American newspapers to the plentifulness of food in this country?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir, I am aware of this practical expression of sympathy on the part of American friends. American Press correspondents in London know the true position, and have been encouraged specially to report it to their papers, in order to correct any misunderstanding that exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICES (INTERRUPTION).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General when the telephone service which was interrupted by the mid-winter storms will be re-established in rural areas as in Wiltshire; and whether rebate of rental will be made to subscribers whose telephones have been out of use?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The damage caused by the storm at the end of February has been generally repaired, although there is a small number of lines still out of order in the West and South West (including cases in Wiltshire), where the damage was exceptionally heavy. It is hoped that service will be completely restored very shortly. As regards rebates of rental, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my predecessor on 21st February to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield).

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend using his influence to get these repairs finished as quickly as possible?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I should like to use this opportunity of paying a tribute to the men engaged in this work. There were 60,000 lines put out of order, and yesterday the number still out of order was only 448.

SCILLY ISLES (TELEPHONE SERVICE).

Mr. Beechman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the telephone service between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland has ceased to operate since the war; that the Scillonians have been informed by the postal authorities that they are legally bound to pay for this service notwithstanding the fact that it does not exist; and whether he will either restore this much-needed service or remit the charges in respect thereof?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The public telephone service between the Scilly Isles and the mainland was suspended on the outbreak of war for reasons of security. I am glad to say that communication was restored on 8th April.

SOLICITORS' FRAUDS.

Mr. Emery: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to prevent fraud before it is committed rather than to inflict punishment after a client's possessions have been stolen by a solicitor?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As I have already indicated in answers to previous Questions, the Law Society are hoping to introduce a Bill part of which is directed to preventing frauds of the kind referred to.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a considerable number of conscientious objectors are being granted exemption on condition that they remain in the teaching profession; and whether, in view of the danger to the country of the spread of the views held by these people, he will take steps to ensure that they are not employed in any schools which receive State grants?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have no information on the matter, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the appointment of teachers and the termination of their appointment are the responsibility of the local education authorities or governing bodies of schools, as the case may be. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no reason to suppose that the teachers concerned would fail to observe the principle, to which the teaching profession itself attaches great importance, that political propaganda should in no circumstances be introduced into the schools.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether he does not think it undesirable that patriotic citizens should be forced to send their children to be taught by these people, and will he use his influence with local authorities to prevent their being employed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: If there is any evidence of political propaganda by such persons, steps can, and will, be taken.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that 11house physicians and house surgeons of the Royal Hospital, Wolver Hampton, were recruited on 1st September last into the Emergency Medical Service, and were informed that they would be retained in their then posts in the hospital for a period of three months from that date, and that one month later their appointments were cancelled without payment of salary; and is it intended that the same three months' salary shall be paid to these 11 doctors as that which has been paid to all house officers recruited under the same class and whose appointments have been cancelled under like circumstances?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The practitioners referred to were enrolled in the Emergency Medical Service last September, on a three months' contract, involving liability to be called up for service, in the first instance, at the Royal Hospital, Wolver Hampton. No occasion arose for calling them up, and their contracts accordingly lapsed, without any question of remuneration. I am unable


to agree that these officers have received different treatment from others in comparable circumstances.

Sir R. Bird: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, might I ask whether it is not a fact that others who were enrolled in like circumstances have received compensation in respect of the cancellation of their enrolment?

Miss Horsbrugh: These particular officers at Wolver Hampton enrolled, and were not called up. In other districts, officers enrolled, and were called up; and, because they were called up, they have received remuneration. There was no need to call up these officers; and, therefore, they did not receive remuneration.

Mr. Mander: Is not that point purely a technicality? Is it proposed to deprive these doctors, because they failed to fill in a certain form, of pay which is going to all their colleagues?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I do not think it is only a case of failing to fill in a form, nor is it a technicality. Certain officers in Was all, who were called up, had particular work to do; and those who were called up were then liable to be sent to any part of the country where their services were required. Those who were not called up, but were merely enrolled, remain in their hospitals, doing exactly the same work as they were doing before.

Mr. Mander: If my hon. Friend and I bring to the attention of the hon. Lady cases which are comparable, where payment has been made, will the hon. Lady be good enough to look into them?

Miss Horsbrugh: Officers have been called up only when it was thought necessary to utilise their services.

NAVAL OPERATIONS, NARVIK.

Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister any further statement to make about naval operations in the North Sea?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to-day to make any general statement on the naval aspects of the war, as I hope it will be possible for one to be made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to-morrow, when perhaps more information than

we now possess will have come to hand. The House, however, will probably wish to hear the account which I have just received of the fierce action fought by the British destroyers against the German force in Narvik this morning. Five British destroyers steamed up the fiord, and engaged six German destroyers, of the latest and largest type, which were also supported by the shore batteries and guns newly mounted ashore. His Majesty's ship Hunter was sunk, and the Hardy was so severely injured that she had to run ashore and become a wreck. The Hotspur also received serious damage, and the destroyer Hostile slight damage. The remaining vessel, the Havoc, was untouched.
After a most determined action against a superior force, with larger and more modern ships, and in the face of gun-fire from the shore, the damaged Hotspur withdrew, covered by the other two destroyers. The enemy appeared in no condition to attempt pursuit. One 1,600-ton German destroyer was torpedoed, and believed sunk, and three were left heavily hit and burning. It is perhaps not less important that six merchant ships, suspected of containing the unloaded stores of the German expedition, were sunk in the action by the British destroyers. On the way out, they met the German ship Ravensfeld, which was found to be carrying the reserve ammunition of the landed German forces. This vessel was blown up. The House will naturally not expect me to deal in any way with further operations.

Mr. J. Morgan: Was not a heavy gale blowing at the same time, giving added glory to the episode?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about to-morrow's business?

The Prime Minister: After going formally into Committee of Supply the Adjournment of the House will be moved and a Debate will take place on the recent developments in the conduct of the war.
The Debate on the conduct of the Economic War originally arranged for to-morrow will be postponed. We do not propose that the Debate to-morrow shall take place in Secret Session.

Mr. Attlee: Mr. Attlee: In the opinion of the Opposition, it is desirable that there should be a Debate in public to-morrow, because the whole country should know whatever facts can be given, and in these circumstances we entirely acquiesce in the postponement of the suggested Secret Session, which might take place at a later time.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Short title.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The Committee will realise that we are meeting under rather unique conditions, in which we are asked actually during the war to give consent to the existence of land forces. That is the unique position.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member allow me to put the Clause, as I think his observations will perhaps come better on Clause 2? Clause 1is purely the title of the Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lawson: The Committee are asked to give consent to the existence of the Army, and the fact that this comes during a war of this magnitude makes it rather a unique occasion. But the Bill is naturally linked to the question of discipline, and I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman on this Clause had anything to say to us about the conduct of the troops in general. I have been very much surprised that, although there are, I believe, over a million men who have been taken into the Army for the first time, there has been very little complaint, as far as I know, about the discipline of the troops, and no complaint about the conduct of any court-martial. I think that one could have expected such complaints in view of the fact that so many young men from civilian life have for the first time submitted themselves to Army discipline.

The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member again. I am afraid that it is impossible to get all that he wants to say in Order on this Clause. It would

be in Order no doubt on the Third Reading, which will follow directly, and will give him much wider scope.

Mr. Lawson: I thought that my remarks would rather apply to the Preamble of the Bill, and I am very much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for giving me guidance in this matter, and the opportunity, at the proper stage, to ask the Minister for information upon discipline and conduct in general, and upon the conduct of courts-martial. I will therefore leave the matter where it is at the moment.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member is anxious to raise these matters, they may possibly come on the Preamble, but I am afraid that in that case they will have to come after the new Clause which stands on the Order Paper.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(Amendment of Army Act and Air Force Act in relation to certain Dominions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give some explanation of the changes in this Clause?

3.57 p m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Edward Grigg): The explanation of this Clause is that it arises from the passage by this House some years ago of the Statute of Westminster. Some Dominions were bound by Sections 2 to 4, and some were not. Australia and New Zealand, not having adopted these Sections, their law has no extra-territorial effect under that Act. The Clause was introduced in order that the law of the Dominions of Australia and of New Zealand may apply to their forces outside Australasia. The position of Newfoundland is unaffected. The third point in the Clause is that since Australia and New Zealand have recently passed legislation similar to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, it is necessary for us to provide that the facilities to be afforded to such of our Forces as may be in Australasia should be governed by their legislation and not by our own. That is the sole purpose of these Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendments of Sections 43, 68 and 183 of Army Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lawson: This Clause also represents an Amendment of the Act, and I think it would be just as well to have some explanation of the change which has been made.

3.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This is quite a simple Amendment. It is in order to deal with the case which may very well happen now of a mixed force of Army and Air Force commanded by an Air officer, and it will enable the soldier who has a complaint to make to bring his complaint to the commanding officer of the force, who may happen to be an Air officer. It gives an additional right of appeal to the soldier, of which he would be deprived when the commanding officer happened to be a member of the Air Force unless we made this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of ss. 43 and 68 of Air Force Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir E. Grigg: This Clause is similar to Clause 4 and does the same thing with regard to Army officers in control of Air Force personnel.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(Printing of Army Act or Air Force Act not to affect enactments or regulations modifying the Act otherwise than by verbal amendment.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir E. Grigg: Under the Army Act the number of aliens serving in the Army is limited. This House has passed a regulation dealing with the employment of aliens during the war, and this Clause is in order to preserve that regulation.

Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal from courts-martial.)

After Section 56 of the Army Act there shall be inserted the following section:
56A.—A person subject to military law convicted by court-martial of an offence for which he might have been tried on indictment by a civil court shall be entitled to

appeal against the finding of the court-martial to the Court of Criminal Appeal."—[Mr. Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, ''That the Clause be read a Second time."
My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) and I put down this Clause to call attention to a matter which has been considered by the House on various occasions during the last two or three years. As hon. Members will see, the Clause draws a distinction between offences which are purely offences against military law and offences which are also indictable offences against the ordinary civil law and which could therefore be tried on indictment in a civil court. It sometimes happens that courts-martial adjudicate on cases which could be tried in the ordinary way by a judge and jury, and where that happens the effect is that the man who is tried loses the right of appeal which he would enjoy if the case were heard by a civil court. It is true that there is a review of the case by the Army Council, but I do not think any hon. Member would dispute that there is an enormous difference between a mere review and an appeal. I do not say for a moment that there is no value in the review that takes place by the Army Council, and I know that there are cases where the verdict is altered as a. result of that form of proceeding, but the accused has no opportunity to appear either in person or by advocate, and he has no opportunity to state before those who adjudicate what objection he takes to the trial in the court of first instance. Nobody will seriously suggest that there is no difference or that a review by the Army Council or any other body can ever be a proper substitute for a properly constituted appeal.
As the Ministers know very well, this matter has been raised before in recent years. It has been raised particularly by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen), and when we had a considerable Debate on the matter in 1938 a demand was supported by Members in different parts of the House, and by Members with a good deal of experience in these matters, that there should be a right of appeal from conviction by court-martial. Eventually a Committee of Inquiry was set up, on 15th March. 1938,


and I would like to remind the Committee that its terms of reference were as follow:
To examine the existing system of trial by court-martial under the Army and Air Force Acts and matters incidental thereto, and in particular to consider whether it is desirable and practicable that a person convicted by court-martial should have a right of appeal to a civil judicial tribunal against his conviction, and to make recommendations.
I think everyone will agree that that was an exceedingly strong committee. It was presided over by Mr. Roland Oliver, now Mr. Justice Oliver, and it included Sir Felix Cassel, Mr. Tristram Beresford, K.C., and also the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson),and in addition there were two representatives of the Services. That committee was set up in March, 1938, and I do not know precisely when the report was presented to the War Office, but I understand it was quite a considerable time ago, and before the war started various reasons were given from that Box why the report should not yet be published. Shortly after the commencement of the war, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) asked whether it was intended to publish the report. The hon. Gentleman who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office replied that it was not intended to publish it, and he said:
The main recommendations of the committee related to the appointment, constitution and functions of the Judge Advocate General and his office. As it is not practicable to make the proposed alterations during the war, it would not be possible, if the report were published now, to indicate the decisions of His Majesty's Government thereon, and its publication has therefore been deferred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1939; col. 1052, Vol. 352.]
We can only gather from that statement that it is not proposed to make any alteration or even to publish the report as long as the war lasts, and I am bound to say that that seems to be an exceedingly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Even if it is not possible to act upon all the recommendations of the Committee during the war, is that any reason why the terms of the report should not be published and made available to Members of the House? It was said in that reply that it would not be practicable to carry out the recommendations of the Committee during the war. If the report were published, hon. Members would be able to judge of that matter for themselves, and is there any good reason why they should not be

allowed so to judge? There seems to be a tendency on the Treasury Bench to withhold information of all kinds from the House of Commons, even when it is information which has no strategic importance whatever. We had one example of it in the case of the West Indies report, and now we have another example in the case of the report of the Oliver Committee, and we put down this Clause particularly to draw attention to the refusal of the Department concerned to publish this report.
As regards the Clause itself, I would only say that as far as we can see there is no vital reason why a change of this kind should not be made, even during the war. An appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal does not involve anything in the nature of a rehearing. In not one case in a hundred is the decision taken to call evidence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. All that happens is that the transcript of the evidence in the court of first instance is sent up to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the appellant or the advocate who appears on his behalf tries to convince the court that there has been some irregularity in the original trial and that that irregularity has led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. That does not seem to present any great technical difficulty, even in time of war. Presumably a record is kept of the evidence in the case of a court-martial. Indeed, it must be kept, because it has to be transmitted to the Army Council for their approval, and it would be an equally simple matter to transmit it to the Court of Criminal Appeal. We all hope that the number of cases in which this issue will matter during the war will be very small, but there are bound to be some cases, and it would be a matter of satisfaction if we could be sure that in all cases of this kind where members of the Services are charged with some indictable offence and convicted by court-martial substantial justice has in fact been done.

4.9 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: The hon. Gentleman has moved his Clause with his usual cogency, and I hope I shall be able to give him satisfactory reasons why, at any rate during the emergency of a great war, the change which he advocates should not be made. With regard to the Oliver Committee, it is true that this subject was referred to Mr. Roland Oliver and his


committee, and that report is not being published because it deals with a large number of matters which were under consideration in the War Office when the war broke out. Owing to the rapid expansion which has taken place since and to the emergency character of the existing situation, it would be impossible to give effect to the greater part of the committee's recommendations at the present time. I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman had better not assume that if that report were published, it would necessarily support him in the course which he has just been advocating. As a matter of fact, this matter has been referred in the past to two absolutely independent committees. It was referred immediately after the last war to a committee presided over by Lord Darling, and at a later date, as a result of many questions which were put to the Labour Government in 1924, it was referred again to a committee of which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was chairman while that Government was in power and which had another chairman, I think, after the Labour Government went out of office. In both those cases the decision was quite clear, and, I think, unanimous, against the change which the hon. Member advocates this afternoon.
There are two aspects of that change—first of all, as to its desirability, and secondly, as to its practicability—and I should like to say a word or two on both those aspects. With regard to its desirability, we all agree that the object of this procedure, whether by court-martial without appeal or whether by civil procedure, is the same. It is that the interests of justice shall be served, with the qualification that in the case of the Army or any Fighting Service discipline shall be maintained. Everybody will agree that those are absolutely necessary points. The Darling Committee went carefully into these points. The hon. Gentleman said that the soldier was not in so good a position as a person accused before a civil court if he had not got this appeal. The Darling Committee said he was actually in a better position, and I do not think I need go into the argument, which is to be found in the report of the Darling Committee. The actual words used by Lord Darling, who was a master of words, were:
A soldier is in a better position.

If the hon. Gentleman likes to follow the argument, it is there. He may not approve of it, but at any rate that was the view of a very distinguished Judge and of the Committee which worked with him.

Mr. Foot: I would point out that it would be very much more impressive if we could have the views of the distinguished Judge who has just advised on this matter.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not think it would serve the purpose if I were to go into the various reasons why the report should not be published at the present time, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said, that he must not assume that the report of the Committee would in any way support the case he was making to-day. In the second place, the Darling Committee said that there was a great responsibility in these matters being decided by a court which actually saw and heard the witnesses. In the case of appeals in the Army that would be impossible. Finally, I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the circumstances, particularly with regard to death sentences, in the last war. The Darling Committee went very carefully into that point, and this is what it stated in regard to courts-martial under review by the Commander-in-Chief:
As showing the care with which all considerations were weighed and the desire to show mercy whenever the interests of the Army as a whole, and of the nation, permitted, it may be stated that no fewer than 89 per cent. of the death sentences pronounced were commuted by the Commander-in-Chief. We doubt very much whether any court necessarily not possessing information which he possessed as to the discipline and moral of the Army, would have ventured to exercise clemency to any such extent.
The Commander-in-Chief, of course, commuted sentences in many cases where a Court of Criminal Appeal would have had no legal grounds for interfering and must, therefore, have dismissed them. It shows conclusively that the method of appeal which now exists may be much more favourable to the accused or convicted person than the course which the hon. Gentleman suggests. So far as fairness and the interests of justice are concerned, both Committees, and the Darling Committee certainly, endorsed the view of that time. There then followed the Committee which was presided over by the


hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)—

Mr. Lawson: May I put the hon. Gentleman right on that point? The Labour Government fell while that Committee was sitting, and someone else had to take my place. While it sometimes bears my name, it is a fact that the Committee were fax from arriving at conclusions at the time I left. Someone else had to make the conclusions and sign the report.

Sir E. Grigg: I must apologise if I seem to be making the hon. Gentleman in any way responsible for the conclusions of that Committee, but he knows that the report is generally known after his name, and that is why I so refer to it. What he says is true. This Committee reported in 1925 on this question of appeal in the cases of death sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal. They quoted, with approval, the findings of the Darling Committee and said:
We have little to add to those observations except that they are supported by the Service evidence we have taken and that we fully agree with them and can recommend no amendment of the Act on this subject.
There, therefore, are very clear decisions by two independent authorities which, at intervals, were asked to report on this subject. I think the Committee, in the present emergency, may safely be guided by the information which they expressed, particularly in view of the fact that if the latest inquiry were published, it does not follow that it would give any support to the arguments which the hon. Gentleman deduced this afternoon. I might add that this principle of keeping military procedure apart and having no appeal from military courts is followed not only in England, but in the United States. Wherever our system of law prevails this principle holds at the present time. In the case of France, where the system of law and the whole method of procedure are very different from ours, there is an appeal to a civil court in time of peace, but in time of war that is absolutely abrogated. I think, therefore, we may say that the existing procedure affords safeguards as good as can be given under any procedure, and it is certainly the best from the point of view of military discipline.
Now I come to the question of practicability, which is an important point. There is a general rule—and it is laid down

clearly in the Manual of Military Law—that in places where civil courts are available, and no practical reason exists why cases should not go to a civil court, they should, as a general rule, go to such a court. But there remains a large number of instances where practical difficulties do exist to a large extent because parts of the Army are out of reach of civil courts and troops, also, are constantly moving about. In time of war, of course, that difficulty becomes still greater. It is a system in which the national interest may be concerned, and I think no one will argue that a change of this importance should be made in time of war. At a time like this, when there is the gravest national emergency, an immense responsibility rest son different commanders in the field. They have our future and the lives of millions of men in their hands, and those lives are affected by the issue we are discussing this afternoon. I think the whole Committee will agree that, from the quotation I have made from the Darling Committee, the powers given to the Commander-in-Chief in France in the last war were exercised with the greatest care, and I would ask the Committee to give the same confidence to our commanders at present in the field.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, by his own speech, given a most convincing reason why it is desirable to publish the Oliver report. He has been standing there and saying, "You must not assume that this report would have been in your favour." He has implied to us that if we did get this report, we would be very badly stung and wish we had not seen it. Surely that is a very undesirable thing. The report has not been published, and we do not know what the terms are. We are subjected to hint and innuendo as to what the effect would be if we did know what was in the report. If we knew it, it would clear the matter up once and for all as to what were the effect and weight of the Committee. It is no good asking us to assume this or that. Why are we left in the sphere of assumption at all when it would be so easy to clear up the matter? When the Financial Secretary came to deal with the positive arguments he apparently forgot what the terms of the Clause actually were, because nearly


the whole of his argument and quotations from previous Committees were devoted to an offence with which this Clause does not deal.
I have had some experience of courts-martial in France, and I entirely bear out what the hon. Gentleman said about the humane manner in which Lord Haig and others exercised their functions in reviewing death sentences. These sentences were for such offences as cowardice in the field and sleeping at a post and the kind of purely military offences which are not subject to indictment before a civil court. Our Clause—and it is amazing that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have noticed it—deals solely with indictable offences and entirely rules out of consideration the kind of offences he had in mind when he made his quotations. The authorities he quoted are not authorities in his support at all. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been interesting, and there is much of it with which many of us agree, particularly his words about the great responsibility resting on those who have to deal with discipline. But it really does not touch the kind of offence which was meant to be dealt with by this Clause. That being so, the whole stuffing and essence of the hon. Gentleman's reply has gone, and there is not much left. He has not put before the Committee any solid reason why the Oliver report should not be published. If it was against us, we should have to bear the brunt of that, and it would be a powerful influence, coming, as it would, from such a source. The reasons in favour of giving effect to all the various matters with which that report may deal are no reason for not letting the Committee know what were the recommendations. The hon. Gentleman has not put forward any solid reason for not accepting the Clause, because he was dealing with an entirely different class of case.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The Committee, I think, will see the difficulty in which I find myself in this matter, as one of the signatories to the report. The hon. Gentleman has just said it would not give any countenance to the Clause. I do not want to be dragged into this discussion, but I want to be quite honest and impartial, and I must say I do not see

why the report should not be published. I see no real objection to that. It is quite true that any changes of big nature would be very difficult for the War Office and the Judge Advocate-General's Department at the present time. The Committee will also understand that those who are members of a committee do not like to do work which is to be kept in a pigeon hole.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): I want to deal with the important point of the failure to publish the report. That is the real reason behind the Clause. We wish to have the report published, and if the hon. Member can give us an assurance to that effect we shall not press the Clause. Even in war-time we think that the report of responsible persons appointed for a specific purpose should be made available to hon. Members. This is not a matter of giving information to the enemy or of undermining discipline in the Forces. The whole nation is now subject to being embodied in the Army, and I think it is of vital importance to the nation that hon. Members should not be deprived of the very latest information which is the result of careful investigations by a responsible committee presided over by a distinguished Judge. I hope the hon. Member, who I know is quite new to his office, will be able to give a sympathetic reply to our request. If he insists that the report should not be published, I am afraid we shall have to press the Clause to a Division.

4.32 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) tried to draw a distinction between two classes of crime, but he did not seem to realise that an indictable offence may be just as important from the military point of view as from the civil point of view. I should have thought he would have discovered that from his own experience in the last war. Troops have to serve in many other countries, and there may be indictable offences against the civilian population which are of immense importance from a military point of view and must be dealt with summarily if discipline is to be maintained. I think his argument falls to the ground. An indictable offence may be just as important from


the military point of view as any other military offence. As to the plea which has been made for the publication of the report, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be influenced by the fact that a distinguished member of the committee sees no objection to the publication of the report. I will certainly convey the observations which have been made to my right hon. Friend, and while I can give no undertaking, I can assure the Committee that he will give it immediate and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Foot: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his statement that the publication of the report will be reconsidered by the Secretary of State for War with sympathy. In view of that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE:

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this be the Preamble to the Bill."

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I gather that I shall be in order now in raising the matter to which I have already referred. Considering the very large number of young men, quite unused to military life, who have been brought into the Forces for the first time, it is remarkable that we have heard so very little about misconduct. From the very few and insignificant complaints which I have received on matters of discipline, it would seem that the conduct of the troops has been of an extremely high nature. I am wondering whether the Financial Secretary has any information on the matter. An average civilian going into the Army does not know the Regulations, and even the wisest sometimes commit themselves without knowing it. Then there is also the conduct of courts-martial, where a man has committed himself. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has had any complaints about them, but I have not had any complaints, and I think that at a time like this, when over a million young men have been taken into the Army, and in view of the high standard of conduct that has obtained, this Committee ought not to pass this Bill without taking note of the fact. I do not want to compare the present Army with other armies, but the fact is that modern education has

made a very great difference in matters of conduct and discipline. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can give some information to the Committee on the matter.

4.39 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for raising the point and giving me an opportunity of making a statement. I can say at once that the discipline in the Army at home and abroad is quite excellent. There have been no complaints or representations of any kind, and the hon. Member is quite justified in what he said about the conduct of courts-martial. There have not been any serious complaints in regard to them. What is remarkable is that in this tremendous influx of young men into the Army from an extremely wide sphere the standard of capacity and discipline and trustworthiness has been kept up. The standard of discipline is really what I would call the discipline of a rowing eight and not the discipline of the slave galley. It is a discipline which causes everybody to play the game. I was in France the other day and saw something of our Expeditionary Force. I have personal evidence of how excellent is the spirit of the troops. Another thing which has impressed me is this. In the last war there were difficulties at times with the civilian population, but they are very much less to-day, and that is an excellent tribute to the Army. The relations of the Army with the civilian population in France are excellent. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the request which the hon. Member has properly made.
Question, "That this be the Preamble to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended, Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir James Edmondson.]

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I desire to take this opportunity of raising the question of the action of the Government in suspending the examinations for the Civil Service. I make no apology for bringing up this question at the present time when there are matters of grave interest and importance that are exercising our minds and hearts, because I believe the position and condition of the civil government of this country and its administration are of vital importance, not only in peace-time but in war-time, and are matters of lasting concern to the good government of the country and the well being of the people. There is a number of hon. Members who desire to take part in this discussion, and therefore I am going to tell a plain tale quite plainly and put the case as I conceive it objectively and in the hope that the Government will really give consideration to the point of view which is held by hon. Members in all parts of the House in opposition to the decision which they have up to now taken.
I will begin by making a short reference to what took place during the last war and in the years that followed. In the last war all the ordinary examinations for the Civil Service were suspended and were not recommenced until the year 1926. It is true, of course, that there were the Lytton and Southborough examinations, but they were on an entirely different footing from the ordinary Civil Service examination, and, therefore, we have the fact that it was not until eight years after the termination of hostilities that the normal competitive Civil Service examinations were recommenced; that is, some 12 years in which they were suspended. In some cases the period was even longer than that. The examinations for the higher grades of the Civil Service were not held until the year 1928 or 1929, a suspension of some 14 or 15 years altogether. These facts, which I think are perhaps not fully recognised, have an important bearing on the issue of the suspension of the examinations at the present time.
These matters were brought before the Government, and the reason which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave as the most prominent, and originally almost as the sole, reason for suspending the examinations was that it was im-

practicable or undesirable to bring together a large number of examinees in one place under the conditions prevailing in war time. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, but my view of that argument for not having examinations at the present time can be characterised only by the one word "bunk." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that there are large congregations of people coming together, not for such an important thing as serving their country in the Civil Service, but for entertainment and amusement—which I should be the last to suggest should be denied to them—in theatres and cinemas. Only two nights ago, I attended a big meeting in the Usher Hall in Edinburgh at which well over 1,000 people were present. There are large entertainments in the open air, such as football matches, at which thousands of peoples congregate. There are meetings in the Royal Albert Hall and other places at which thousands of people come together. The main or sole argument that the examinations cannot be held because of the large concourse of people who would be present at one and the same time cannot be sustained.
Further, I would remind the Financial Secretary that those who desire to see this suspension of examinations brought to an end are prepared to suggest to him—what must be present already in his mind—that the numbers could be broken up quite reasonably and examinations of much smaller numbers of competitors be held simultaneously in a number of different places, not in one city, but in many parts of the country. That proposal is not being put forward now for the first time, for it has long been put forward for other reasons. There would be no serious difficulty in making that administrative change in the method of holding examinations at the present time. After what I have said, I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be surprised if I say frankly that I do not believe this alleged reason is the real one, and I am all the more surprised that the Government, through the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, are putting it forward in view of the fact that, as I am prepared to admit, there are genuine difficulties and obstacles in the way of the full resumption of Civil Service examinations. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had


been candid and had put forward those objections, the House and those who are interested in the matter could have dealt with the objections seriatim, discussed which of them are permanent and binding, which of them could be met in certain ways, and which of them have no relevance or binding character. It seems to me that the only ground for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department taking the view which they do is that they want to rule out entirely all discussion of the real reasons, that they are not prepared to face the question of which examinations could be held at the present time and should be held, which could not be held, and which might be held in part or with certain reservations.
Before I come to that matter, however, let me deal with the question of what are the objections that we see to this suspension of the examinations, and what will be the consequence if the policy which the Government are pursuing be persisted in. There are four important sets of considerations which are relevant to the issue. In the first place, there are the candidates themselves. Representing as I do one of the divisions of Edinburgh, I have had many complaints from parents and from possible candidates about the very grave hardship which is inflicted upon them owing to this stoppage of the examinations. There are boys and girls who have for several years been devoting themselves to preparations for these examinations. They have understood that they would have an opportunity of serving their country in this way. Now, suddenly, they are told that that opportunity is entirely cut off from them. I want the House to realise that this is not merely a temporary block on their aspirations. It is a permanent block, because if a few years are allowed to elapse—if, to put it no higher, two or three years elapse—before the examinations are resumed, there will be no chance of these particular candidates being examined, unless the whole system of regulations is entirely altered, because the age of candidates for examination is very strictly limited and unless a candidate can enter at the suitable age, he or she is debarred not merely now but permanently from sitting for the examination. All these boys and girls who were hoping to serve their country in this way will be prevented from doing so, and the whole object of their lives will not be achieved.
It is not only candidates whose hopes are being frustrated in this way—and here I come to the second point. Educationists all over the country are realising the grave disadvantage of the course of action which the Government are taking. They have been in the habit of holding up Civil Service work as something to which some of their brightest boys and girls should look forward, and they are complaining very bitterly that the objective of much of their training is being thwarted. I received a letter only this morning from the principal teacher of the North-West Civil Service College in Londonderry. This is what he says:
I would like you to be informed of the effect of the temporary cancellation of these examinations on what I may fairly describe as a small school. Normally we carry from 110 to 130 students on our rolls, and normally we place from 70 to 80 of these young people in permanent positions in the Civil Service each year. On 1st September last our roll was 125; to-day it is 55, and there seems every chance that when the mid-Summer break occurs, should there be no prospect of competitive examinations in the meantime, we shall be compelled to close down, after carrying on for 30 years. I appreciate the fact that there must be some measure of unavoidable hardship in individual cases in times of war, but it seems to me that the Civil Service Commissioner and his staff could still function without impairing the national effort in any way. The young people between the ages of 15 and 18 who enter the Civil Service are not, of course, of military age, and it seems to me absurd that after undergoing preparation they should find their chances of competing for appointments withheld. What are these young people going to do, and how are they going to find work which is comparable in status with that provided by the Civil Service? In the larger towns there may be alternative work provided by war conditions, but in the country districts this work does not exist, at any rate on this side of the Irish Sea.'
The third point to which I want to refer with regard to this suspension is its effect upon the Civil Service and the persons employed in it at the present time. The proper arrangements for the Civil Service depend upon a fairly regular intake and wastage in each year. By that means one gets a proper age distribution of the whole personnel of the Civil Service. If there is a suspension of the intake for a certain number of years, that normal age distribution is at once disorganised, and in that way the work of the Civil Service is made much more difficult to organise and the Civil


Service is prevented from fulfilling its regular and proper tasks from year to year and over a period of years.
That brings me to the fourth, and what I consider in some ways to be the most important, point which calls for the special attention of the House. As I said earlier in my remarks, it is perhaps true that many people when they are thinking about these Civil Service examinations imagine that it was only for three or four years in the last war that the examinations were stopped, that if the present war goes on for the same length of time, it will be for only another three or four years, and that only for those two comparatively short periods will the normal arrangements of the Civil Service have been suspended. But as I have said, that was not the case in the last war, because at a minimum the suspension period was 12 years—from 1914 to 1926. There have been only 13 years in which the examinations have been carried on, and even that does not apply to all the grades. If we are to enter upon another suspension period, beginning in 1939, which is to run as long as the period of suspension on the last occasion—that is to say, 12 years—what will be the position in days to come? Supposing that that precedent is followed—and I am entitled to make that supposition, because we have had no positive assurance from the Government that it will not be—competitive examinations will not be renewed until about the year 1951. In that case, over the whole period of 37 years from 1914 to 1951, we shall have had only 13 years in which the normal competitive examinations have been the method of entry into the Civil Service. For 24 years out of 37, we shall have had an irregular entry.
This whole Civil Service of ours, which is the pride of the country, was built up after a tremendous fight in our democratic institutions, a fight to get rid of the privileges and methods of appointment which led to a great deal of dissatisfaction over long periods of history. We built up the system of competitive examination, which according to every opinion, has worked exceedingly well and has been of the utmost value in preserving the government of the country from corruption in every form. If the Government are allowed to get away with the line of conduct which they are taking

and if they are allowed to suspend the examinations for as long as the suspension lasted in connection with the last war, it will mean that for two-thirds of a period of 37 years the principle of competitive examination for the Civil Service will have been abrogated in favour of the most undesirable system of appointment by recommendation and direct favour. That is a position to which, I think, this House ought to take the strongest exception and resist by every means in its power.
I said at the beginning that I thought the alleged reason put forward by the Government for this action was quite unworthy, though I used a stronger word. It is, of course, true that there are certain obvious difficulties in the way of the complete resumption of Civil Service examinations. It is clear that a man cannot, at one and the same time, be serving in the Civil Service and in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and the fact that we are calling up, by conscription, the manhood of the country, beginning with the age of 20, is a factor of supreme importance. It would be obviously unfair if we were to prejudice the position of men who are serving or will be serving in the war. If we fill the Civil Service to repletion with persons who have not served in the war, then when the war comes to an end, the men of this generation, who would normally find a field of employment inside the Civil Service will be prevented from serving their country in that capacity. In particular, it would be entirely wrong if we filled up with women, who are not subject to military service, the whole complement of established staff, thereby shutting out the men who had borne the burden and brunt of the war. We all recognise that that is a question which has to be faced.
In the second place, we realise that with regard to the higher grades of the Civil Service, where the intake consists of people who are within military age, you could not have any examination for them in the middle of their military duties. Those facts have to be dealt with, but I am sure that the Government and the Treasury have another difficulty present in their minds. Here again I think they can make a real case. What they do not want to do, even with the lower grades, is to take a number of boys or young men of 16 or whatever the age


may be, bring them into the Civil Service, and put them on the established staff, only to find when they have been there for a year or some longer period that they have to go into the Armed Forces. The Treasury would then be under certain contractual obligations to them for pay, and this, the Treasury feel, would be unreasonable in the special circumstances. That is, partly, a real difficulty. It is also, partly the desire of the Treasury to deal with the young people of the country on the cheap. They want to put the Civil Service on an unestablished basis temporarily, during the period of the war, so that they will be under no obligation to the young men of the country. They can get those young men, as I say, on the cheap and turn them off as soon as they like.
In so far as this is a real objection, it has to be faced. In so far as it is a mere desire to do things on the cheap, I do not think we ought to look upon it favourably. That is the answer, as far as I can give it now to those real objections which I have indicated and which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary scarcely mentioned. So far, he has stood pat on the absurd contention about the difficulty of holding examinations in war time. In that connection, I would ask the House to consider what are the grades which have to be filled by competitive examination and I think when that is understood the weakness of the Government case will become more apparent.
A number of grades were being filled before the war by competitive examination. First, there is the grade of typists and clerk-typists—girls and women—the entrance age being 16½to 25. I am informed that the average number of candidates for that grade is something like 2,000. They are all females. Then there is the grade of shorthand-typists and clerk shorthand-typists, for which there is an average entry of 1,000, all females. Then there are clerical assistants who enter between the ages of 16 and 18 and of whom the average number entering is about 3,000. They are all females. None of those objections, which I believe are the real objections of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, would apply to those cases at all. There is no reason why those three sets of examinations should not be held. There is no question in this

case of men being called up in the middle of their work in the Civil Service. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be fair and admit that if there are girls and women who wish to take those three types of examinations, then those examinations ought to be resumed at once and normal entry into the established Civil Service allowed in that way.
What are the other grades? There is the open clerical grade. This is a very large grade, for which something like 7,000 usually enter at the ages of 16 to 17. There are both male and female entrants. Here, I admit, the difficulties of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman begin. There is a difficulty as far as the male entrants are concerned. These men very shortly after their entry into the Civil Service would be liable to be called up for military training, but I do not think that should be a complete and final bar to them. I make two suggestions. First, it would be a not unreasonable proposition that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should look over the records of the past to see what proportion of women and what proportion of men candidates are usually successfull in these examinations. Then he could allot to women their proportion—or if he wanted to be on the cautious side something a little less than their proportion—of entries, so that girls who had fitted themselves to take this examination should have an opportunity of trying out their abilities.
With regard to the men, that is a matter which would have to be considered. It would be necessary to consider whether it would be posible to allow men to take the examination and not to start at all in the Civil Service but to proceed straight away to their military training, or whether they should be allowed to enter the Civil Service—the successful candidates, I mean—for a short time in order to gain preliminary knowledge. As to arrangements for pay, I think a reasonable scheme might be evolved. I do not want to bind down the Treasury or to say that these people should be treated in exactly the same way as fully fledged established staff, but I think that if that question were discussed in an amicable spirit, a satisfactory solution would probably be reached. Then, when the war ended, you would have knowledge of those who, by passing the examination and by their preliminary experience and by the ability which they have shown at


the appropriate age, had proved themselves most suitable to be drafted back into the Civil Service at the end of their military service. I do not suggest that it is an easy matter to arrange, but if it were gone into carefully I believe a satisfactory solution could be found.
Then I come to the grade of executive officers, the age of entry to which is from 18 to 19 and for which there are usually some 2,000 candidates both male and female. I see no reason why a similar method should not apply in this case and the same remark would apply to the officers of Customs and Excise. I admit that we are now getting to the much more difficult problems which arise in these cases. Incidentally, with regard to the officers of Customs and Excise I would point out that the facile answer given by the Government at the beginning, about the difficulty of bringing together large numbers of examinees in war time, was peculiarly inapplicable to this case. In fact, the main examination had already been held for that year for officers of Customs and Excise, and only a small number of those who had been successful in the written examination would have had to go through the viva voce examination in small batches. But even in that case the principle of suspension was sustained. I am not saying that there are not proper objections such as I have already indicated. What I object to is that this universal bar, on the ground that the examinations could not be held for war reasons, should have been applied even in that case.
I come now to the administrative class. The age of entry in this case is from 22 to 24, so that clearly those concerned would come within the military age. I still think even in this case, there might be an opportunity for offering a limited number of places to women, but I recognise that in this case it is not possible to proceed on the lines which I have previously suggested. I have now considered the various cases right through. I shall have established my point if I have made it clear that the fundamental objection which the Government allege in the holding of these examinations, namely, that you cannot bring so large a number of examinees together at one and the same time, really cannot be sustained. If we can remove permanently that bar,

and if the Government admit that the real reasons are others, then we can discuss each case on its merits. As I have pointed out in regard to the three grades solely concerned with female examinees, the Government have not a leg to stand on in rejecting the claim that the examinations should be resumed. In regard to the intermediate cases open to people of both sexes, there are, we are prepared to admit difficulties to face, and some sort of compromise will have to be reached, although I do not think the difficulties are insuperable, or that the good sense of the people of the country and Members of this House can fail to reach some sort of suitable compromise.
With regard to certain of the grades, it may be that it is quite impossible at the present time to hold the examinations, but even in these cases I do not shut out the possibility of a partial resumption. Even if it is decided that partial resumption is in any way impossible, we want to have something much more definite from the Government as to when these examinations will be resumed. In the last war, as I have pointed out, no examinations were resumed until 1926, and in the higher grades they were not resumed until 1928 and 1929.In the case of the present war that would mean probably they would not be resumed until 1953 or 1954. If anything like that happened again, it would be a real tragedy from the point of view of the public conception of what the Civil Service ought to be. I notice in the apologia in response to a deputation which came to wait upon him that the Financial Secretary seemed to be of the opinion that there would not have been any difficulty after the war if it had not been for the attitude of Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that. The point was that the arrangements of the Government were thoroughly unsatisfactory, and Members of Parliament in all parties found it necessary to protest against what was going on. Owing to that protest in different parts of the House, the Government had to make certain alterations in their original proposals. It is no good the Financial Secretary telling us that he has a beautiful plan which is going to work out all right provided tiresome Members of Parliament do not upset it. That is not the way things are done in a democratic country, and the Government will not get away with it.
I rather gather the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken exception to that. He shakes his head. I gather then that he does not take exception. All right then, he does not take exception to my representation of the facts, and I am quite satisfied. The Government must promise us that an early resumption of examinations after the war will be carried out in those cases where it is impossible to carry them on at the present time. The House will not be satisfied if the Financial Secretary stands pat on a mere general refusal to re-open the examinations, and still more I contend it will be perfectly right in refusing to accept the wholly improbable reason that these examinations cannot be started, merely because the Government cannot do what other bodies having examinations are already doing, and that is arranging for them to be held during the war.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I have been trying for some weeks to obtain some information by way of Questions on the Order Paper, both about what is happening to the Civil Service Commissioners, and in regard to the new procedure for recruiting staff in the Civil Service. I must say that I have never met, on any topic I have raised with any Minister, so much confusion, and never have I been left with such a strong impression on my mind that there is something they want to keep hidden. Surely the Minister might have given us some information long before this, because it was a drastic and revolutionary change which was made, when in a day the whole system of filling our Civil Service was flung overboard and some—I think it would be entirely wrong to call it a system—new haphazard method of recruitment was put in its place. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whom I saw on the Front Bench has not departed, because I am hoping to put to him some points affecting him more than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Some of the Questions I put to the Minister were to try and find out what the Civil Service Commissioners were doing now that their jobs have come to an end. The Minister gave me evasive replies. I asked him whether he would think of abolishing the Civil Service Commissioners and save the

£70,000 at present expended on them. He replied that the expenditure was not £70,000, but £64,000, which put me in a terrible mess, because above all things I like to be accurate in details. As a matter of fact, the amount estimated to be expended was not £70,000, but £74,000.
The Minister estimates also to make some savings; but I notice an extraordinary thing in this connection. He estimates to make considerable income from fees paid by candidates attending examinations and expects to draw £11,000 during the financial year of 1940 as a result of the fees charged to candidates attending examinations not taking place. That is good finance, and if anyone can do it, I am sure it is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I want him to tell me where that £11,000 is coming from, and what is being done with this amazing list of officials of Civil Service Commissioners—a first Commissioner with £2,000 a year, the same sum as last year, in spite of a diminution or almost vanished responsibility, an Assistant Commissioner with £1,500 a year, an Assistant Secretary, a Director of Examinations, a Senior Assistant Director of Examinations, an Assistant Director of Examinations, a Chief Superintendent of Examinations and so on. They are all down in the Estimate and are receiving salaries for this incoming year. Presumably all these people have found that their work has come to a complete standstill. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the important point that failing the examination the alternative is patronage. It may be concealed or safeguarded in many ways, but it is patronage.
I want to mention to the House a matter which passed between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself. Parents living in Glasgow, not in my constituency, wrote to me saying that their daughter had been appointed as a shorthand-typist in one of the Ministries as a result of a competitive examination, and that she had been posted to a position in London. The parents were greatly disturbed about their little daughter being brought down about 400 miles away from their home, picturing air raids, the temptations of the great city, and all the rest of the things, and they wrote to me asking me whether it would be possible to get their daughter transferred to one of the Government offices in the West of


Scotland. I passed on the letter in the ordinary way to the Minister. I did not attempt to put undue pressure on him; I just passed it on and suggested that the requests might be attended to. I received a letter back from the Minister—I am sorry I destroyed it, but I was so annoyed about it; however, I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not dispute my description of it. It accused me of using my Parliamentary position to secure advantages for my friends. That is a matter on which I have been tremendously scrupulous during the whole of my Parliamentary life. I do not think I have ever asked for any advantage for anybody in any public service. I did say a word, however, to the Prime Minister about the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on one occasion, but that could scarcely be described as trying to secure privileges for my friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps I had better wait until I have heard the answer before I decide whether I was in error or not. But because of this undue pressure which the hon. Member for Bridgeton was bringing to bear on the Treasury to secure this advantage for his shorthand-typist friends, it had been decided to send out a notice to the whole Civil Service that attempts to bring influence to bear on Members of Parliament to secure promotions—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Gentleman has not been able to refresh his memory of what was in the letter, but perhaps he will take it from me that there was no question of issuing a circular. The reference was to a long existing circular which is brought to the attention of civil servants when entering the Civil Service. There is no question of re-issuing it. I can show the hon. Member a copy of the letter.

Mr. Maxton: I hope it will be produced before the end of the Debate. The impression definitely made on my mind—and I do not want to misrepresent the letter—was, first, that I am accused of using my Parliamentary position for securing advantages to my friends, namely, the transfer of one shorthand typist from London to Glasgow, and to do it for a person who, until I received the letter, was completely anonymous; second, and this action was of such an

obnoxious nature that civil servants must again be reminded that that sort of thing is wrong. I never saw this particular civil servant in my life; it was her father who wrote me the letter. This interested me very much, because although the letter I received from the Treasury bore the signature of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was obviously prepared by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Captain Crookshank: Captain Crookshank indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxton: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the letter before the conclusion of the Debate. It was obvious to me that it was written by the Civil Service Commissioners; or, at any rate, from the internal evidence, it could not have been written without consultation with them. It was on the same day that I had on the Paper a Question suggesting the abolition of the Civil Service Commission that this letter was sent. That was a pure accident. I do not say that the Chief Commissioner was feeling sore, but he certainly made me feel sore when I read that letter. At the same time as this was happening, while I was being ticked off for using undue pressure and threatening the Government with what would happen if they did not send a 16½-year-old typist from London to Glasgow, questions were being asked all over the House about the hoisting of people into really important positions in the Civil Service. I have lists in my pocket from one Civil Service union giving me a full collection of obvious jobs—not 20s. a week typist jobs, but important administrative posts. Some of them have been the subject of question and answer, some of them have been the subject of investigations, and some, I am glad to say, have been the subject of dismissals.
There has been during the last six or seven months a hysterical running of the Treasury by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and a rushing in, without serious investigations into ability, qualification or character, of people whose only claim to be admitted into the Civil Service was that they had some relation who was there before or that they had some relation who was even in the Government and very high up. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refrain from talking to me about patronage when he is sitting there to-day defending the institution of a system


which was departed from by the good sense of the Parliamentary government of this country, but which is more and more being instituted again in various branches of the public service and even in private enterprise. Glasgow Corporation, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, and bodies that knew what could happen when jobs were handed out by influence and pressure have deliberately established a method of competitive examination as the one way by which they can get free of the unfairness and jobbery that arise from the placing of friends.
I want to turn to the other aspect of the question as to how the present recruitment is taking place. I understand that for the junior positions the local Employment Exchange is used in the recruitment of typists, shorthand typists and junior clerks. I want the House to know what I am certain must happen under this system. Government officers requiring assistance of that description will go to the Employment Exchange nearest the office. That means that the recruitment of civil servants now will be mainly among the young people of London, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the big centres where there is a large number of Government offices. An examination of the facts would show that in the recruitment by competitive examination a large proportion of those who came successfully through the examinations and secured appointments were from rural and provincial places in which there are practically no Government offices.
The clever boys and girls in the country schools who could not go to universities because of family circumstances, who could not get advanced higher education, but who could get coaching by their teachers and correspondence courses, entered these examinations and passed, and came into the Civil Service from the country and from obscure little places. Many of them are now holding responsible positions in the Service. They will be barred now, if I understand the working of the machine correctly. If the Air Ministry or the War Office or the Foreign Office want shorthand typists or boy clerks, they will not send to East Fife or to the wilds of Wiltshire or to Wales or to Northern Ireland; they will send to the Employment Exchange nearest to Whitehall. I shall be glad to hear from the right hon.

and gallant Gentleman that there is some method by which this is not happening, but, as I read the situation, that is what is happening to-day. The result is that the rural and provincial boys and girls, the clever lads and lasses who came into the Civil Service from these remote parts, are now barred entirely by the method of recruitment from the Employment Exchange.
I want to have a clear description from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of the filling of the higher appointments from the Central Register, how the Central Register functions, and how it is controlled and directed. Is it a Central Register in the sense that only people in the centre get on to it? Do really important appointments pass through the Central Register in reality? Or does a Minister choose a person for a job and say, "Now run away and put your name on the Central Register," and then telephone to the Central Register and say, "Send me the man whose name you have just put on the Central Register; I have a job for him"? That has been done. I understand that some of the names were put on after some Members below the Gangway started to ask questions about the appointments. They were regularised after the event, as we do with marriages in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Per subsequens matrimonium.

Mr. Maxton: I am not casting any reflection on the moral character of the Minister or the persons occupying these jobs, nor am I using strong language which the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was betrayed into doing. I really believe that there is in the whole business, I do not say any large-scale development of it, but the making of a first-class racket. It would be as well to stop it now rather than later on.
I am supporting fully the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for the starting of competitive examinations again. I do not share the doubt that he has about the difficulty of appointing the young men, because I think it is the Government's duty to take on young fellows of 17 and 18 and give them three years' work before they go for military training if they have the necessary


qualifications and pass the necessary examinations and the Government have the necessary appointments. All over the country young fellows cannot enter jobs where they could gain real skill at 16, 17 or 18, because employers are saying, "We will not start you because you have to go away at 20." That is all wrong. If a fellow can get two years' experience in a skilled craft or in an office before he goes to the Army, let him at any rate have those two years and let the Government give a lead in the matter. Do not let the Government start saying when the boys are leaving school, "You are condemned to be a soldier at 20, and what happens in between does not seriously matter." I am supporting fully the claim of the right hon. Gentleman for the re-establishment of the competitive examination method of entry. If we are not to get that, I want to be assured that there is real systematic recruitment going on just now. I cannot say that I would fight to the last ditch for the competitive examination as the final heaven-sent way of distinguishing between man and man, but it is the best device we have found so far that makes for fairness, and it has not been proved to be an indifferent way of recruiting people in the past. If we are not having that, however, I want to know that there is some real assessment of ability, character and qualification by the Central Register in the higher ranks and by the Employment Exchanges which are responsible for recruiting to the lower ranks. I want to know in detail how the Central Register is operating, and how a competent person proceeds in order to get on to the Ceneral Register and to be considered for appointments. I want to know that it is done by some assessment of merit and ability and not by the use of political influence.
I also want to know whether the ordinary work of the Civil Service Commissioners has come to an end. They are the people upon whom we have relied, the people who have the experience, the people who have the accumulated knowledge of how this work has been done over the years. When I suggested their abolition I did not really want to abolish them, but only wanted them to do something to justify their existence, and I cannot see why, in connection with this Central Register recruitment, the skill, experience and knowledge of examination routine—

both written and oral examinations—which has been accumulated by the Civil Service Commissioners should not be utilised, even supposing that many of the positions which have to be filled in these urgent times are not of the kind for which one tests by a written examination. Suppose it is done by the method of an interview. Always the Civil Service Commissioners have been accustomed, with a certain proportion of their technical appointments, to make them upon a record of knowledge and experience added to the results of a personal interview. At such interviews there are present one lot of persons who are accustomed to assess men in general, with an added person or persons with expert knowledge of the particular job that is to be filled.
That seems to be an intelligent and an appropriate way of working this business, and the only people who have actual knowledge of it in the past are the Civil Service Commissioners. Now it has been turned over to the Ministry of Labour who up to the war knew how to send 1,000 navvies to a road-digging job, or on occasion to place an engineer, though, generally speaking, engineers do not get themselves placed through Employment Exchanges. In general, the Employment Exchanges have dealt with the mass employment of skilled and semi-skilled workers rather than with the selection of men with special ability for special jobs. In five or ten minutes, in that extraordinary, panicky, hysterical state which hung around the first weeks of the war, when they were even going to abolish Parliament, or to transport it elsewhere, and do all sorts of silly things—in that hour or two, I will not say of panic, but of uncertainty, of the imagining of all sorts of impossible things, this Department of State, which did this job to the satisfaction of all of us up to the outbreak of the war, was shoved to one side, and the Ministry of Labour, who had never done the job at all, had it imposed upon them.
I think that is all wrong, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that a case has been fully made out this afternoon for the resumption of the examination method for the recruitment of the general body of the Civil Service. None of us will claim that it must be a hard-and-fast system, iron-bound. There must be exceptions and flexibility, having regard to the times in


which we are living, but for the big general body of recruits the competitive examination system should be reintroduced. As has already been suggested, the examinations might be localised, with 10 centres of examination instead of one or two. I can see no difficulty in carrying on this aspect of the nation's life any more than we believe there will be any difficulty in carrying on all the other material aspects of the nation's life.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I should like to express my personal appreciation of the Financial Secretary's treatment of the case presented by the deputation which visited him about a fortnight ago. He has obviously taken great pains over and given a vast amount of thought to this question. He has in a way done what a celebrated proverb deprecates, "Oh that mine adversary had written a book." He has quoted arguments which have weighed with him in making his decision, and that is fortunate for those who are interested in this question, because they can really see what is in his mind in refusing this concession. Other speakers have dwelt upon the state of mind which prevailed at the beginning of the war when a number of decisions were taken which have since been regarded as being unhappy ones.
It is an interesting fact that not long ago an essay was published by a writer on sociology who has made a special study of what he has called ''the instinct of the herd in peace and in war." It was a really great contribution to the knowledge of what does happen to persons in certain states of psychological emotion. The writer, who is probably the greatest authority on the subject, then definitely expressed the opinion that a large number of the decisions taken at the outbreak of the war bore, as he described it, all the diagnostic marks of panic. The diagnostic marks of panic are, principally, that there is no relation whatever to reason in the reaction which takes place, that it is a herd reaction.
I want to dwell upon that point, because it is obvious that decisions are being taken now which reverse what was done in the early part of the war. One instance is supplied by the medical profession, with which I am most familiar. In the early stages of the war the whole of the consulting personnel of the volun-

tary hospitals in London was enrolled in full-time service. The immediate result was to deprive the civil population of London of any expert attention, to empty the hospitals and completely to disorganise medical education. The effect of that became obvious very quickly, and within a fortnight the Minister of Health was using every effort to persuade the staffs to come back, but he did not succeed in doing so for three months, because he had a totally ineffective method of achieving this purpose; but what I want to stress is that that earlier decision was reversed as soon as it became clear that it was necessary to do so.
That, I think, represents the state of the case we are now considering. The answer which the Financial Secretary gave to the deputation was that the resumption of the Civil Service examinations was impracticable and inadvisable. I hope that if one can convince him that they are not impracticable he will drop the second count of their being inadvisable. Let us see what is the practicability of this concession. The number of persons who would be affected is something like 15,000 in a year. Most of them are subjected to examination once a year, but in some exceptional cases twice a year. The number of persons who would be collected in London in any one place at any one time is, it is agreed by the Financial Secretary, about 1,000. It is also agreed by him that it would be quite possible so to arrange matters that the 1,000 would be distributed among a number of centres, so that not more than 100 persons would be collected in any one place.
Let me put what seems to be an analogous case. In January this year London University conducted its matriculation examination. There were 1,272 candidates examined, and we distributed them among 12 or 14 centres. Nowhere were there more than 100 at one time. Therefore, the impracticability argument does not seem to be substantiated. I am also given to understand that no professional or scientific body of importance has been obliged to cancel examinations at the present time. What was the position in which London University found itself at the beginning of the war? It affords a good example of what we are contending for at the present time. In the first weeks of the war, on the advice of the then Lord Privy Seal, the schools of London


University left London. That meant dealing with something like 13,000 day students, and about half of them were evacuated to centres in the country. That evacuation has meant so much loss to the schools that there is a very strong movement in favour of returning to London in the near future; and that will probably be the case with the larger colleges as far as they can relinquish engagements which have been made with provincial centres. That will probably happen in the great majority of cases in the term beginning in October.
That will mean the return to London of something like 13,000 young people of the same ages as we are concerned with here. The Financial Secretary very properly insisted upon the value of youth and the necessity of protecting young people from disasters which may befall them. If these colleges return, something like 13,000 students will be collected in London for several hours a day on five or six days a week and not, as in the case of these examinations, for two or three days once or twice a year. On that showing, the case seems to me to be overwhelmingly proved against the danger of assembling some 1,000 young people in one place in London once or twice a year. The persons who are very largely affected are the clerical class and we are told that in the last year there were some 11,000 candidates for those examinations. That is exactly the class mainly concerned and the age is largely under 17. It seems most unfair to deprive young people at that age of the opportunity of taking these examinations now. If they were now allowed to sit they could obtain these qualifications and put them into sold storage, as it were, until they return after the war—if they do return. This was one of the strongest reasons for giving this concession to that class. It is the largest class which the Minister has in mind, and it is that which is most affected. It ought to have this concession.
Let us take the other question, raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He put before us the very valuable point that this destruction of opportunity will very largely affect the poorer classes of students, and particularly those in rural districts who have been unable to attend colleges but have had advantage of part-time study, pos-

sibly through certain recognised agencies. We should not hamper these students in any way which is not necessary. It is most unfortunate that this class should be hit. It is not a matter of unreasonable obstinacy in the Minister but of his having the wrong end of the stick. If he were aware of the realities of the case he would not have spoken as he has done, both in Parliament and to the deputations. I hope that the position will not be taken up that this is not the time to make the concession. It surely is exactly the time. I assure the House that the hardship of this disappointment causes actual agony to a very large number of young people, who see themselves suddenly deprived of any future in life, and with the prospect of being turned into occupations which are mostly blind alleys. From the same cause a large number of teachers are also adversely affected. From every point of view, therefore, educational, sociological and otherwise, this opportunity ought to be conceded now.
The last point I wish to make was also taken by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and I would ask the House to agree that it is a most important one. It is in relation to the inexperience of the body, the Ministry of Labour, which is now charged with the selection of candidates, and is a very strong argument indeed. The selection of young people for posts by way of examinations requires a very special gift which is acquired only after long experience. The Civil Service Commissioners have had a very great deal of experience in the matter, and they owe their high reputation to the fact that every one knows that candidates chosen for the Civil Service have really earned their position. Nothing can take the place of this system and the argument is very strong for retaining it. The Ministry of Labour, which is entrusted now with the task of selecting candidates, has not sufficient experience for making the selection with any satisfaction to the public or to those who are selected. In practice, this system is a most undesirable way of filling vacancies. I hope that the Minister will not maintain his attitude, but will regard the resumption of these examinations as both practicable and advisable.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I would support the arguments


which have been addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the resumption of examinations in the Civil Service. A short time ago I read a letter in the ''Manchester Guardian" in which the writer said that the position and attitude of the Government were like
a Maginot line of official myopia and obtuseness.
I do not think things can be so bad as that or so incredible as that analogy suggests. My approach to the matter at the moment is not by way of attack but by way of appeal, and my appeal is based upon two main considerations. One is in regard to the injury which, I believe, is being done to the Civil Service at the present time; the second is that great hardship is undoubtedly being inflicted upon a very large number of young people, their parents, their teachers and the authorities of many educational institutions in this country.
The first point was developed by the right lion. Gentleman who opened the discussion. He spoke, as he does on so many matters, with great knowledge and experience. So have other hon. Gentlemen who followed him. I do not want to elaborate what they have said, but I venture to emphasise one point. Ever since the people of Great Britain began to realise the importance of the administrative side of government, apart from its Parliamentary side, they have become very jealous of the high name of the Civil Service, of its integrity and its efficiency. Very properly, they believe that the integrity and the efficiency of the Civil Service have, in the past, been based largely upon the fact that admission to it has been open to all classes and has been based upon proved merit. Although people are at all times jealous of that reputation, they are, I think, particularly anxious about it at the present time, and anything which suggests, or savours of, or even gives rise to, an accusation of the creation, or the manipulation, or the making of jobs, will properly arouse intense resentment in the country. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was right in emphasising that there is the danger—although I do not believe it has actually happened—of the examination system being replaced by what he called the patronage system. That would be a very serious alteration, from the point of view of the integrity and the efficiency of the Civil Service.
Now let me say a word about the second point, which relates to the hardship created. No doubt most hon. Members will know that entry into the Civil Service is one of the chief aims and ambitions of a very large number of boys and girls who reach the higher classes in secondary schools and colleges. They have always that in mind and, indeed, in the later stages of their scholastic career it is the main object of their training. Now they find this opening practically denied to them, and alternative employments very difficult to find. The result is that hardship is being done to these young people and their parents. I am afraid that this position may have another repercussion of a wider character, which is that in the future parents will be less ready to encourage or enable their boys and girls to proceed to higher standards in secondary schools and colleges if they cannot find vocational openings for those boys and girls afterwards. This is a serious matter, and I find difficulty in reconciling it with that policy of getting the greatest educational advantages for our young people which many spokesmen of the Government have declared to be their own. I am sure that the great majority of the parents of this country are only too anxious to maintain such a policy at the present time, although there are great difficulties and dangers.
I would like to give two examples of the present position, one from a boys' school and one from a girls' school. The letter from the boys' school is culled from a letter in the "Manchester Guardian," and was written by a headmaster in Middlesbrough. He said:
My own school is a typical example. Some 22 boys having gained their school certificates last July, were preparing to take the examination for the clerical class in the following September. War intervened, the examination was cancelled, and those boys took some other form of work, suffering, not unreasonably, from a sense of injustice. Worse still, in the sixth form there were eight boys, generally with first-class brains, studying for the executive class examination. Their future is obscure, as few employers are prepared to start boys of 17–18, even of their intellectual calibre. The waste is appalling, especially when this one school example can be multiplied a hundredfold and more.
Now let me give the other example from a very important county school for girls in Wales. This has been given to me in a letter from the headmistress, who is an


experienced educationist in that Principality. The position is really serious in that school, because the pupils have sat for four of these examinations: the clerical class, grade I; the clerical class, grade II; the executive class, and the clerk-typists. She says:
Since September, 1938, eight of our girls who sat the examination in April, 1938, have been called up, and this means that they are going much further down the list than they formerly did. This means that excellent pupils are unable to sit Civil Service examinations, whilst girls of less ability are being accepted by the Commissioners. We feel very strongly that the present system is most unfair to our pupils and that the Civil Service is getting a poorer type of girl than it had in normal times.
I put forward these two examples with a view to showing the difficulties and dangers which attach to the present position.
Now, what of the difficulties? There is a great danger, we have been told on behalf of, or by, the Government, of massing so many people at one time in one particular place and in one building for a particular examination. I have spoken to many people about this objection and when I have told them that it is one of the reasons put forward by the Treasury for not holding the examinations they have thought that I was joking. Only when I have convinced them that it is fact and not fiction, have their mild glances of amusement turned into a stony stare of incredulity. The whole thing is ridiculous. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) has explained what his University has done, and many organisations which conduct examinations have been doing the same thing. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that any of the boys and girls sitting for examinations, had they still been held, could have shown him a perfectly easy way out of the difficulty because they would have suggested creating a large number of centres in which examinations might be held. That would not only be a way of solving the difficulty, but it would also be a very good policy because there would not be the inconvenience and expense which attached in the past.
What is the other defence? The only other defence of which I have heard—and I must say in fairness to the Government that this defence has not been put forward by the Government or on their

behalf—is the suggestion that certain people in the Forces would be prejudiced if examinations were resumed. How or why they would be prejudiced I do not know, because I have never been told, but I think that any difficulties in that direction might easily be overcome. In any case, I think I am entitled to take it for granted that snot a single Member of this House would wish to do anything which would prejudice in any form whatsoever the position of anybody in the Forces. I think I may assume that the Government will do, in regard to these people, what they would call upon private employers to do, and ensure that the positions of those who are fighting for us will be safeguarded in those happy days which their sacrifices will have won for us.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Cove: The case for the restitution of the examination for entrance into the Civil Service has been comprehensively put to-night. Hardly a new point can be made; so I do not intend to detain the House very long. I would observe that the Government stand alone in this matter if they remain obstinate so far as the restitution of the examination is concerned. More than once I have been in deputations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Incidentally, I would like to thank him for listening to us for so long on the last occasion. Those deputations have consisted of representatives of all parties in this House and I should have thought that on the last occasion it was very evident to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that not only was an academic case put up for restoring the examinations, but that on all sides of the House there was very deep, and indeed bitter, feeling about the whole matter. Hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members of the Liberal and Labour parties were deeply concerned because the door was being opened for patronage and action was being taken that would undermine the prestige, dignity, effectiveness and efficiency of the great Civil Service which we have established in this country, the pride not only of this country but of other countries throughout the world. Why is it done? No Member of this House can understand it.
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have realised, on the occasion of the last deputation, that all


the arguments which have been put up without exception are absolutely flimsy and that if the Government really desired to restore the examinations all the difficulties which have been put up could easily be swept away. The first thing that is wanted is the will to restore the examinations. Then I am sure all the difficulties would disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) probably did not go far enough when he referred to one of the reasons that have been given, as I have understood, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Not only is the difficulty one of having a large number of students massed together for this examination, but they have made the finicky distinction between massing students in a qualifying examination and massing them together in a competitive examination. These students can be massed together if it is merely a qualifying examination like the matriculation or the school certificate, but when it comes to a competitive examination there seems to be some great distinction in the mind of the Treasury. Why cannot the examination be held? It is not so much because of the masses but because it is a competitive examination.
I should have thought that it amounts to this: A date is fixed for the examination. This is a competitive examination and the brightest and ablest children in the schools, particularly the municipal secondary schools, come together. On that particular day, forsooth, the Fuhrer determines that we are to be bombed. In other words the whole of these examinations are to be swept away because of the contingency that on that particular day we shall be bombed. Was there anything more flimsy than that? It is ridiculous to say that all the big social and public interests involved are to go by the board on the assumption that on that particular day when the examination is to be held the Germans will bomb us. That reason will not bear looking at. There must be others.
One thing of which I am certain is this: Supposing we are bombed on the day on which the examination is being held; in Heaven's name, it would be easy enough to hold the examination again. I am sure people would be reasonable about it; the students involved would be reasonable. I plead with the Minister for a return to normality. Why base a large and important public policy on an

assumed abnormal situation? It is true we might be bombed but that should not prevent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from saying "We defy Hitler," in the sense that we will carry on our normal life in a normal way so far as it is practicable. It is easy to regard it as a practical matter. As was said by my right hon. Friend who led off this Debate in a very able and comprehensive statement, we have not yet had the real reasons for the policy which the Government are pursuing. I do not know how much the Board of Education have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; I hope they have been consulted in the matter, because I think the Board have a right to be consulted about it, although they seem to be frozen out by every other Ministry. They should be consulted not only about the effect on the life of the individual child but on the corporate life of the school. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew anything about this matter he would realise that he is removing the collective aspiration of the school when he denies the right of these children to sit for these examinations. It is a grand day in a school's career, particularly in the municipal secondary schools, when it is announced to the whole school that a bright lad or girl has been successful in these examinations.
Not only on behalf of the interests of the individual child but of the whole corporate school life, the well-being of the school as a unity, I beg him to reconsider this matter and to reinstitute the examination. I cannot understand a Conservative Minister denying the right of these lads to have this qualification behind them because they may go into the Army. I should have thought that a Conservative Minister, probably more than anybody, would have safeguarded the rights of these lads who are going into the Army. They are being penalised by the fact that they have to go into the Army, and they are also being penalised for the rest of their lives. That state of affairs must go. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to meet the wishes of all parties in this House and not to stand fast and stick his toes in as if he had done something that is right and good; he has done wrong and the whole House feels that he has. I ask the Minister to meet the whole wishes of the House and to say that he is pre-


pared to reconsider the matter and reinstitute the examination.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I hope the Financial Secretary will reconsider his decision in this matter. It has been rather noticeable that during this Debate each hon. Member who has spoken has urged him to reconsider his decision. The Civil Service has been built up on competitive examinations. Surely it must be that we have not yet heard the real or the best reasons why the suspension should be continued. The reason which was given in a Parliamentary answer on 25th January was:
The resumption of open competitive examinations for entry into the Civil Service is not practicable or advisable in present conditions." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Jan., 1940; col. 792, Vol. 356.]
But has my right hon. and gallant Friend realised the danger of the alternative which is the growing up of a patronage system? Another reason which has been given, I suppose to support the impracticability of the resumption of these examinations, is that it is said to be unsafe to assemble in any one place at any one time the number who would be concerned. If I correctly understood my right hon. and gallant Friend, it is agreed that the total number would not at any time exceed 1,000. My hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) pointed out that London University has already held examinations for numbers exceeding 1,000, and I believe he mentioned the number of 1,200. Surely, therefore, there can be no more impracticability in this matter; and, surely, it is advisable that those children who have been studying for this examination, who have had money spent on their education, with a view to their entering this Service, should not be driven, as a result of the suspension of these examinations, into blind-alley occupations. I would urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider this matter, and to see that, if the examinations cannot be resumed as a whole, at all events, they shall be resumed as to some part.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: The House and, I think, the country are greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend

for bringing up this topic at this time. The survey that he made of the whole situation was accurate and sweeping, and the attack that he made on the Government's sole excuse for holding up Civil Service examinations was, I think, unanswerable. I shall be very interested to hear what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say in reply to him.
I was not present when the deputation waited on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, as I understand it, the sole defence seems to be that the aggregation of a certain number of young people for an examination constitutes a very great danger, and must, therefore, be avoided. We have many aggregations of people at the present time. My right hon. Friend enumerated some of them. We find aggregations of people at football matches every Saturday. In Scotland, at any rate, it was the rule soon after the war broke out that spectators and players entering football grounds should carry gas masks. In Scotland that rule dropped off bit by bit, but such was the official policy at the beginning of the war. I would draw the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the way in which that initial rule was departed from in regard to attendance at football matches. One by one, football grounds in Scotland had the rule lifted. The very last ground at which it was in existence was that of Cappielow in my own constituency. I had a very hard job to get it lifted there, but in the end it was lifted. Now there is no football ground in Scotland at which it is necessary to have a gas mask. Then there was a large gathering last week at the funeral service of a Parliamentary colleague of ours. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself was there—every Minister on the Treasury Bench was there. It was a large gathering; but did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman count the number of gas masks? He did not have one, I observed; and the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr), who is sitting beside him, did not have one either. So far as I could gather, I was the only person attending that funeral service who had a gas mask. That shows how the Government's original policy in connection with aggregations of people has been dissipated. Why not take away the rule arising from that fear in connection with Civil Service examinations?
The course of study for Civil Service examinations is a highly specialised one.
I was much interested in the speeches of hon. Members who come from Wales. I gather that in Wales the ordinary school course covers the subjects necessary for the Civil Service examination. So far as I know, in Scotland that is not always or even generally the case. So specialised is the course required for the Civil Service examinations that special colleges, or seminaries, run courses of study particularly for these examinations. Why the course should be so specialised, in contradistinction to the ordinary educational course in our schools in Scotland, I do not quite understand, but that seems to be the position. The course being specialised, it is rather like the course of study for the legal profession or the medical profession: it requires a number of years' study in order that the candidate may be equipped. That involves certain consequences. I can well understand a specialised course for pupils, for instance, who have got out of step at school. We must always have an avenue for elderly aspirants, and that is a function which these colleges would normally seem to fufil. But, given that special course of study, very grave hardship is imposed on those who have gone through the course, and then are not allowed to sit for the examination.
This matter first arose, as my right hon. Friend indicated, in connection with the Customs and Excise examination in connection with which I received many letters. The first part, the written part, of the examination was sat, if I remember aright, in July last year. I received many letters from people who sat that written examination and from parents or relatives who had a very strong interest in such students. These students had sat the written examination, but were not allowed to sit the supplementary examination, which was to take place, I think, in November. That was a hardship arising at once from the rule which was laid down either by the Treasury or by the Civil Service Commissioners. That rule can very well be allowed to fall into desuetude, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have the courage to intimate, on behalf of the Government and of the Civil Service examiners, that these examinations will be resumed. The course itself, certainly in Scotland, is not the ordinary course.
Last week I received yet another letter. It was from a constituent of mine whose daughter had attended one of the high schools in my constituency, but, in order to prepare herself for the Civil Service examination, had attended what the writer of the letter called
a well-known institute that specialises in preparing students for Civil Service posts.
He narrated the curriculum. It included English, history, Latin, French and arithmetic. As I understand, there are other specialised subjects which are very properly included, such as précis-writing, that are not the ordinary subjects of a school course. Here was a father writing to me, complaining that not only had his daughter spent the time in going through this course, which he said was of a lengthy nature, but, as he pointed out, the course cost money, and, in his case, a good deal of sacrifice. That instance cou1d be multiplied again and again, from all over the country. We have heard from my right hon. Friend that the number of candidates in the lower age groups is something like 13,000. A great many of these young people have gone through long courses, involving expense and sacrifice on the part of those who have to maintain them.
Something has been said about the new method of recruitment. The Ministry of Labour has been mentioned as the channel through which recruits now pass. But this letter indicates another method of recruitment, which I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I hope, will make changes with regard to this cessation of Civil Service examinations. The writer of this letter says:
I ask you, is it fair that the Government should have cancelled Civil Service examinations while, at the same time, filling clerical posts with W.R.N.S., posts which should only be given to those who have, by some measure of training, been trying to equip themselves for this service?
This opens up another point of view on the matter of recruitment. Why is it that during the war there should be such a uniform complex—a complex dominated by uniforms? Apparently the idea is that nobody is able to write a letter dealing with the Army properly, unless he or she wears a military uniform. In this case, it is the Admiralty. Apparently no young woman is able to write a letter dealing with Admiralty administration


unless she is dressed up in a uniform appropriate to the Admiralty. This matter has become somewhat notorious in my constituency. As several hon. Members know, I brought up, by way of Question, the matter of the requisitioning of a very large dwelling house in Greenock called "Bagatelle." That is the largest residence in my constituency. It was requisitioned for Admiralty purposes; and I gather that in "Bagatelle" there is quite a large number of young women dressed in the uniform of the W.R.N.S., and doing clerical work—and, it is complained, doing it at salaries that are far beyond those for comparable duties in the Civil Service or in civil life. They have become known locally as the "belles of 'Bagatelle'."
That leads to the position that was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Here we are getting somewhat near to camouflaged patronage. Why should these young women, who are doing essentially the same sort of work as young women in the Civil Service are doing, be paid at a rate far in excess of that which would be paid in the Civil Service? Might I suggest that the appropriate way of recruiting young women for clerical work of that sort would be by reviving the Civil Service examinations, and, by means of competitive examinations, making the appropriate democratic selection, a method that we are so well accustomed to, and proud of, and that in the end of the day, works out to the best advantage of these young people themselves and of the public service? There is no reason whatsoever why the young women should not continue to be recruited by means of the Civil Service examinations. The sooner the Civil Service examinations are revised for that purpose, the better. Equally there is, with regard to most of the youths who would normally go into the Civil Service in these grades, no reason whatever why the Civil Service examination should not be revived in their case. I am certain, however, that there is no one in any part of the House who would seek to do anything in connection with the revival of the Civil Service examinations that would prejudice in any way the young men who have gone into the Army, Navy or Air Force to serve their country at this time.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan: I rise only for a very short time because most of the points which have been submitted to the House are those with which I am familiar and with which I thoroughly agree. I think it is only right for me to get up on this side of the House to show how complete is the demand that we are making to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night. There has been no divergence of opinion among the speakers. We are all speaking with the same voice in saying that it is high time that these examinations were resumed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) has referred to one letter he had received, but I can assure the House that I have received, not one letter, but dozens and dozens of letters from parents and teachers, pointing out the injustice of the suspension of these examinations. So many grounds have been put forward which seem to be indisputable that I do not want to cover them again, but, speaking as one who has had some little knowledge of education, I wish to stress the point of how badly it affects the education of our young people.
When I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education come into the Chamber a moment ago I thought he had come to breathe a word into the ear of the Financial Secretary, and to say, speaking from his own practical experience of these examinations and of the sixth form in our secondary schools, that the Financial Secretary was going in an anti-clockwise direction in stopping these examinations. I hope that the Financial Secretary will forgive me—although it was my privilege to talk this matter over with a deputation, and he did me the honour of sending me a statement putting forward his case, and it looked as though there was something to be said for his view—when I ask him this afternoon not to take up a stiff-necked attitude on this question. There are so many centres at which these examinations might be held. It is not a question of holding them in one place; they could be held in different centres.
I was very greatly impressed with the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to how these vacancies in the Civil Service are to be filled if there are not these examinations. If the examinations


are discarded, how are vacancies to be filled? The whole history of the Civil Service examinations points to the great lesson that, in the past, there were certain things that were wrong in the way of making appointments in the Civil Service. The Civil Service examination system was adopted in order to do away with this nepotism, as someone called it, and the practice of appointment by nomination. I can assure the Financial Secretary that in putting this question on one side at the very moment when it ought to be safeguarded, we shall want a much better excuse than the one which I know is to be forthcoming about the difficulty of holding examinations of this type in time of war. As an hon. Member sitting on this side of the House I appeal to the Financial Secretary to give us some form of re-starting these examinations, even if he cannot give us the whole lot.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has again come into the House. I was pleased to note his fleeting visit before. I am sure that if the Government realised the attitude of the education committees throughout the country on this question, they would not take it quite so philosophically as they are doing. This is a far more important thing than it appears on the surface. It has been suggested that there are only 13,000 children involved in any one year. That may be true, but the 13,000 children are never again at the age at which they can sit, and, if they fail, it means that there are 13,000 children, and all the people who are interested in these examinations, and they are not confined to parents.
In reading the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday morning, I saw a note suggesting that probably the new Minister for Education would make his first speech regarding education on this question of the Civil Service examinations, and I had hoped that he would. I would have been interested to hear how it would be possible to justify the suspension of these examinations, in view of the attitude of the Board towards other examinations which have been taking place all the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who opened this Debate, used what was

described as a strong word, namely, "bunkum." I do not know that it is too strong. It is adequate, because if no further defence is to be put up for the refusal to hold the examinations than that which has been presented up till now, then "bunkum," either with or without an additional adjective, would adequately describe it.
The principal argument was that you could not gather these young people together in such large numbers because of the danger involved, and yet the Board of Education has allowed scholarship examinations to take place in every county and county borough of this country within the last few weeks, in which the children who were examined were of the age of 11, in far larger numbers than would assemble for this purpose. These young people ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of sitting for the Civil Service examinations at this particular time. In the County of Lancashire alone no fewer than 8,000 children were examined on one Saturday. If it is within the ambit of the Lancashire Education Committee to make provision for the gathering together of 8,000 children in different centres in order that they could be tested in three subjects, surely the reason why the Civil Service examinations are not being held is not that it would be dangerous to bring the children together, but some other reason. I believe that it is a question of the Government giving a lead in the wrong direction.
A hint was given that to take a young man into the Civil Service by examination at 18, when it was known that he would be called up at 20, would be encouraging something which ought not to be encouraged. I contend that the Government are bound to restore these examinations if they are to prove their contention that we are fighting in the interests of democracy. We must realise that young men of 18 who have been training for the Civil Service examination will not have the opportunity again. If they have the opportunity to enter the Civil Service at 18 and are called up at 20, it is they, and not the Government, who will be taking the big risk. The financial reason involved is small compared with the risk of life and all that it means to a young fellow when he becomes 20. If the Government are not going to make such provision, how can they expect any local authority or any private company to make provision for


the young men of 20? You are depriving a whole host of people of opportunities which they are entitled to expect. A woman wrote to me concerning the position of a boy of whom she and her husband were guardians. The boy, being an orphan, had been handed over to these people, who had wanted to do their best for him. They decided that the best they could do was to enable the boy to prepare to sit for the Civil Service examination at the age of 18. That examination should have come this year. It may be said that this is only one of the casualties of the war. It is an unnecessary casualty, and the Government have brought it about. There is no excuse, without a far more adequate answer than has been given, for these examinations not being restored.
If the Government want to reserve occupations by not taking these young people into the Civil Service, so that after the war they can provide ex-service men with jobs in the Civil Service, surely men who have had some training before they go into the Army will be better fitted as ex-service men for Civil Service appointments. That surely cannot apply to girls, who should be taken into the Civil Service at this time. The arguments that have been put forward up till now will not hold water. The suggestion was made that the reasons why these examinations were abandoned for 12 years was because of the action of the Members of the House of Commons, and the Government did what the House of Commons wanted them to do by discontinuing the operation of these examinations for a period. The Government on that occasion listened to the House of Commons. If the whole of the Members of the House could be heard this evening and the question were put to an open vote, they would vote overwhelmingly for the restoration of these examinations. Let the Minister do what the House of Commons want him to do now, and as they did 10 years ago, when they restored the examinations after 12 years.

6.59 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I do not wish to advance the arguments which have already been put forward by Members in all parts of the House in favour of the restoration of the Civil Service examinations. All I wish to do is to endeavour to prevail upon the Minister to

reconsider his decision. I was one of those Members representing all parts of the House who attended the deputation when we advanced arguments in favour of the restoration, and I am bound to admit that there really was not one argument advanced by the Minister as to why these examinations should not be restored. I believe I am speaking for all Members when I say that we came away profoundly disturbed, because no argument was advanced by the Minister, and it definitely left a feeling in the minds of many Members who were present that there must be some ulterior motive why the restoration did not take place. I do not believe there is any ulterior motive, but that my constituents and members of the deputation feel so is unquestioned.
This is not a party matter, because Members on all sides of the House are appealing to the Government for the restoration of these examinations. I do not know of a single Member who is not in favour of the restoration. The only argument which was advanced in favour of the non-restoration was that it would result in large numbers of boys and girls assembling under one roof. As other hon. Members have already stated, there is no reason why these examinations should not be held in different parts of the country with the minimum number assembling at anyone time. Even if there be a risk—and I regard it as remote—it is one which boys and girls and their parents are prepared to take. Suggestions have been made about 1,000 or 1,200 boys and girls assembling at one time. In a factory which I control there are 5,000 workers under one roof, much of which is glass. Surely you cannot put forward with any degree of seriousness that the assembly of 1,200 people is hazardous from the point of view of safety. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and come to the decision to which the whole House is looking forward. As I said in my opening remarks, there are countless people in the country who seriously feel that there is some ulterior motive. Do let us remove the reasons for believing there is anything sinister which I am convinced is not the case. The Minister has failed completely to advance a single argument against the restoration of the Civil Service examinations. I would beg my rt. hon. and gallant Friend to meet the wish of this House and the Country in this matter.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Hicks: I rise to support the view advanced by my right hon. Friend and to ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude. He must feel particularly lonely and miserable. Nobody loves him at the moment, although he is not a bad chap, and, ordinarily, he is quite a decent sort of fellow to meet privately. I am sure he will offer resistance to our appeal, otherwise he would have jumped up earlier and put himself, as well as us, out of misery. I have had the opportunity of consultation with representatives of the Civil Service and people in my constituency, many of whom have spent money on their bright boys and girls who have swatted for Civil Service examinations. The Minister knows that if you swat for a period, and then let things slide, it is difficult to pick them up again and familiarise oneself with the many points needed for an examination. I wonder what the result would be if the Front Bench had to go through the tests which civil servants now have to go through in their examinations.
The issue is very simple. You are not losing any money on the matter. Fees are paid in to meet the costs, and I have been told that there is actually a profit, so that is one thing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to feel happy about. If young men and women have to go to war and come back to find a place in the Civil Service, after having passed a test, I think the least the country can do is to give them some reward for the public service they may perform. Like the hon. Baronet who spoke last, I do not want to suggest improper motives, but there must be some solid reason, something not yet advanced, why the Government will not change their mind. I was thoroughly unhappy about the result of our representation to the Minister. Many things which were decided in the early stages of the war have had to be revised, and we suggest that this is a case in which the Minister should do the same thing and shake hands with us. He is by himself at the moment, and his colleagues will have to move closer to him if he is not to feel a draught. The whole House is against him; he cannot pit his attitude against the whole of this House. Everybody is asking him to agree to the restoration of competitive examinations and give clever boys and girls who have not had the advantage of

university training, but who are very capable, an opportunity of testing their knowledge and skill, so that when a job becomes vacant they may be suitable candidates, after having passed a test. I appeal to the Minister to be generous and not to be so stubborn and mean.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The Financial Secretary is smiling so genially that I hope he will not prove to the House to be an Athanasius contra mundum. Everyone, in all quarters of the House, has been urging on him the same point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) is one who would have liked to have spoken, because I know he has been urged by all the secondary school authorities in his division to put this plea forward. I would join with him in a similar plea. Education authorities and secondary schools throughout the country are affected by this matter and deeply interested. The welfare of thousands of young people is concerned, and I would beg the Government to give way, as they have wisely done on more than one occasion during recent months, to the feeling of the House.

7.10 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): For some reason quite unknown to me the most unkind epithets have been used about me by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, and who himself thought they were most unsuitable.

Mr. Maxton: He ought to withdraw.

Captain Crookshank: It is a matter for regret that this very difficult topic should have made the right hon. Member think that I was using alleged excuses and that back-door intrigues were going on in what is really a purely straightforward case. I have great sympathy with the speeches which have been made, and without going into very great detail I will deal with some of the points. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said that I had indicated that almost the sole reason for closing down these examinations was the war position. I agree, because the examinations which were closed were those which were to have been held in September last. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has said that lots of things had to


be revised at the beginning of the war. That is quite true, and I dare say that lots of things are going to be revised even this week in view of what is occurring to-day. That gives point to my original argument.
It is true that in September it was quite contrary to Government policy to hold open public examinations for something like 8,000 young people, and hon. Members opposite would not have condoned it. I say that in fairness to myself. Some hon. Members who came on a deputation to see me—I was glad to see them—have said how disappointed they are that I should continue to say that there are practical difficulties in the matter. I do not say it is not possible to overcome them—that I do not know—nor do I think I have ever suggested that all the 7,000 or 8,000 candidates offering themselves for examination should meet in one place or at one time. That is not the way these examinations are run in peace-time. They are held in different parts of the country—I am now dealing with the clerical examination in which the House has interested itself to-day. The examination is decentralised. I am sorry to have to stress the administrative point because I do not think it has always been understood that the examination lasts four days, and there is a risk that on one of these days a bomb might fall on the place of assembly. But that is not the sole reason.
There is this further difficulty, and here I am speaking from the point of view of the examiners. If there was a raid warning in any one of these places while the paper was being done the candidates would all go to the air-raid shelters and this would mean that the paper was of no more use. Anybody who has had anything to do with examinations will know what might happen if candidates had to go to a shelter and came back again. That is why I press this consideration in the case of competitive examinations as opposed to qualifying examinations. Some hon. Members have suggested that there is no difference. Supposing that in one of these places there is an air raid. It may be said that that it is a remote possibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is, nevertheless, one aspect of the problem which we must consider. It may not be an overwhelming difficulty, but I must answer the point

because it has been repeated ad nauseam against me to-day.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the difference between a qualifying examination and a competitive examination?

Captain Crookshank: In a competitive examination there are so many vacancies and those who get the highest marks get the vacancies.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is not that exactly what happens in a qualifying examination?

Captain Crookshank: No, certainly not. I am really surprised that the hon. Member should take up that point.

Mr. Cove: If the red light came when a qualifying examination was being held it would have exactly the same effect.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think the point is of any very great importance; I was referring only to the practical difficulty. I have been attacked on the matter and I am replying to the attack. I have never said that there would be 8,000 children in one building, but I have said that there are practical difficulties and one of the difficulties is that in an examination lasting for four days you may have a bomb attack or an air-raid warning, and if that happens the paper which is being done is wasted. Fresh papers would have to be set for that particular group and, human nature being what it is, it would be very hard to persuade other candidates that somehow or other that particular paper was not much easier and enabled candidates to get more marks. In war-time one cannot say that on 4th September next or on 10th October next you can, with the same definiteness and certainty as in peace-time, announce an examination which would have a reasonable chance of taking place. That is a practical difficulty.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is not the risk more than 10,000 to one against?

Captain Crookshank: That does not matter. This is one of the considerations which, as the responsible Minister, I have to take into account. These are not qualifying examinations.

Mr. Silverman: There is no difference.

Captain Crookshank: I am not concerned about qualifying examinations; I am now dealing with competitive examinations. The point has been made that in cinemas, theatres and other places, large numbers of people congregate. I do not think that was a point worth making, but as it has been made against me, I will make it back. It is an irrelevant consideration in the sense that people go to football matches, and so on, of their own wish and at their own risk. If I am the Minister responsible for young people assembling for the purposes of an examination, then if something goes wrong it is I who am to blame, and not the people who go to the examination. In the case of football matches, if something goes wrong the people who go there are themselves to blame.

Mr. R. Gibson: Would not the blame attaching to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be the same as the blame attaching to the Minister who lifted the ban in connection with football matches?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think so, because people are not compelled to go to football matches. [Interruption.] They are not compelled to go to an examination, but the underlying argument of the Debate is that there is a great number of young persons wishing to enter the examinations. That is all I want to say on that aspect of the matter. I do not think it has been realised always that there are practical difficulties.
I want now to take up the point about alleged patronage and corruption. That is the last thing in the world which I would approve or tolerate; but I think there may be some confusion of thought in this matter. What we are dealing with are the ordinary examinations for young persons entering the Civil Service. As the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh said, there can be no question of having examinations in war time for the higher age-groups because, among other reasons, those who would be candidates are called up. It is only in the lower age groups that the question of whether or not there should be examination, arises. The recruiting for that class of work in the Civil Service is at the present time being done through the Employment Exchanges. If the suggestion is that we are not having examinations at present because it is profitable to the Treasury, I must plead

guilty to being a bad steward in that matter, because the present method of recruiting the personnel through the Employment Exchanges is more expensive than it would have been to have taken young entrants as a result of an examination.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I was not discussing the wages that are paid? I thought that the Treasury might take the view that if young people of 17 or 18 started work and were afterwards called up, the Treasury would be in some way liable to make up their pay. I was not addressing myself to the question whether, for the period of their employment, they get more or less money as temporary or established Civil servants.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry if I misrepresented what the right hon. Gentleman said. I thought his point was that we are trying to do this on the cheap.

Mr. Maxton: Are you not?

Captain Crookshank: Whether we are trying or not, we are not succeeding. It is more expensive to engage people for this class of work by the present method than it would be to bring them in as young entrants.

Mr. Maxton: I am informed from responsible sources that in the case of shorthand-typists the highest salary payable for temporary workers is 57s. a week as compared with 72s. a week.

Captain Crookshank: That is not the class of workers I was talking about. I was dealing with the clerical class of 16–17 years.

Mr. Maxton: In that class is not 77s. 6d.a week the maximum? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, without putting strain on himself, try to stick very closely to the facts?

Captain Crookshank: I recognise that this point is a very important one, and it is one about which I have strong feelings. The class of workers whom we are temporarily recruiting take the place of those who would have come in as a result of an examination, if it had been held, and they are recruited through Employment Exchanges on a temporary basis. I do not think there can be any


suspicion that there is there an opportunity for patronage. I think that the confusion has been with regard to other temporary staff of higher grade recruited for the expanding Departments, and as has been pointed out, that staff is now recruited through the Central Register. Of course, that is not my direct responsibility, but from such knowledge as I have, I gather that this is how the Central Register works. It was set up before the war and consists of a large number of names of persons who have put themselves forward as being possibly of use. The Central Register is not an employment bureau because the men and women whose names are on the Register are not necessarily out of work, although some of them may be. A number of them are technical people, professional people, intellectuals—people who have some special qualification which they think may be of use in some civil sphere during the war. I understand that the procedure is that when a Department say that they want someone for a particular job, and especially when they can specify what are the characteristics of that job, there are panels, nominated before the war, which vet the names of the persons who are on the Central Register with a view to finding suitable candidates. For example, if an accountant is required, there is a panel to go into the qualifications of the candidates and into the question of their honesty—I think that was the word used by the hon. Gentleman opposite—into the question of their character and integrity, and their possession of all those qualities which we would most desire in ourselves and in our civil servants. All these candidates are "vetted" by these panels. That is how it is done in practice.

Mr. Maxton: Why is the Minister of Labour doing that instead of the Treasury?

Captain Crookshank: It was decided that it was a matter which should be put into the sphere of responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour accepted it.

Mr. George Griffiths: He would accept anything.

Captain Crookshank: At any rate, he is the Minister who is responsible to this House for that matter. The House will realise that the whole object of the procedure of the Central Register and the

system of investigation by panels is to avoid the possibility of any kind of corruption or even the suspicion of corruption creeping in, and that is the way in which new officials, apart from those who, as I have explained, are recruited from the Employment Exchanges, are coming in to the various Departments at the present time.

Mr. Maxton: All of them?

Captain Crookshank: When one remembers the great varieties of work which the war has brought to the different Departments—and those hon. Members who are in day-to-day touch with the Departments know that some of them are doing entirely novel work at the present time—one must realise that the type of civil servant which is required for such work could not possibly be recruited in war-time, through the medium of examination.

Mr. Maxton: But it might have been done through promotion.

Captain Crookshank: In some cases there may have been promotions. But, to take an instance, the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare is shortly to be discussed by the House, and I gather that the general feeling of hon. Members is that the work of that Department should be intensified. That is work which requires special qualities and also requires knowledge of fields of activity which are quite outside the ken of the day-to-day information of civil servants. I do not think there is any conceivable ground for the suggestion about corruption or undue influence. Reference has been made to the fact that at the beginning of the war, questions were asked in Parliament about certain appointments. Hon. Members will recall what was said at the time. It was perhaps the case that in the rush of the first few days of war, one or two appointments were made which would not have been made in a wiser moment, but hon. Members will also recall that a review of the position was undertaken, and I can say that, as a result of that review, I do not think there is anything now about which the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised the point would have any complaint to make. This matter is not entirely relevant to the original subject raised, but references to it have run through so many of the speeches in this Debate that I


think it well to make that statement, which I hope will allay any anxieties felt by hon. Members and settle the question once and for all. Hon. Members can take it from me that I, personally, would not tolerate for one moment the sort of thing to which reference has been made, and I know perfectly well that that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, who, after all, have a great deal to say in regard to these appointments.
I come back to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh. He referred to the disappointment of teachers and others at the abolition of these examinations, and he quoted a document which, I think, he said came from a Civil Service college in Londonderry, in support of the statement that educationists felt that their work was being thwarted. I noticed with interest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), a former President of the Board of Education, was seated next to the right hon. Gentleman when he quoted that document, and it sounded to me as if the college referred to was in the category generally referred to as crammers. As a general rule, that is a class about which educationists never shed many tears. They have always taken the view that the subject-matter of these examinations should conform, as far as possible, to the ordinary curriculum of the secondary schools and that there should be no need for any candidate to go to a crammer.
In point of fact, in recent years there have been conversations between the Civil Service Commissioners and education authorities, and by and large, at the present time, there is little need for candidates aged 16 to 17 in the ordinary class of entrants to attend crammers. They may have to rub up a special subject a little, but if they are of sufficiently high scholastic standard, there is no need for them to go in for any educational training over and above what they receive at school. It is true that you cannot make the two things absolutely identical, but they are so nearly alike at present that what I say will, I think, be found to stand. Of course, that does not apply to the higher classes—the administrative grades and others of that kind. There, it is true that even those who have secured

honours degrees at universities, sometimes find it necessary, so stiff are the examinations, to go in for some specialised tuition, but I think hon. Members will admit there could be no question about holding those examinations under present conditions whatever we may decide about the others.
Then, the right hon. Gentleman asked me, whether, supposing examinations could not be held this year because of the war, I would give an assurance that there would not be a repetition of what happened between 1914 and 1926. He said that when the examinations were suspended at the beginning of the last war, they were not resumed until 1926 and that if the same principle applied now, there would not be any examinations until 1951. He asked me to say that that would not be the case. I can only answer for myself. I doubt whether either this Parliament or this Government will last until 1951, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I could not possibly give him the answer for which he asks. I can only say that there is no intention in my mind of that kind which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to fear. I thought I had made it clear before, that this matter is one with which we are most anxious to deal, and it is constantly under review by myself and my advisers. I have not closed my mind to the possibility of resuming the examinations in some form or other, for, possibly, some classes and possibily for a good number of candidates. But I never thought that it would be possible, and I still do not think it possible, to announce, right now, examinations for August and September. That is as far as I can go, but I think the House will agree that in the present circumstances, and above all the circumstances of this week, it would be foolish to be very definite on this matter.
There is another aspect of this question which, of course, is not the aspect dwelt on by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it does not directly concern the point of view which they are putting forward on behalf of the parents. Incidentally, from hearing all that has been said about the parents, one might think that everybody who went in for a competitive examination passed and secured a place, but in fact the great bulk of them fail.

Mr. Tomlinson: They should have the privilege of failing.

Captain Crookshank: I ask the hon. Member to keep in mind the position when there are some 10,000 candidates for an examination. In 1938, I think, there were 10,500 candidates, and 7,700 of them were unable to get places.

Mr. Tomlinson: The point I wish to make is that they are entitled to fail.

Captain Crookshank: That is another matter. Hopeful people are inclined to talk as if it is an absolute walk-over for their own prodigies and as if no one else has a chance. Of course, the higher the grade the fewer are the vacancies. In the 18 to 19 group I think 334 were appointed out of 2,244 candidates. As far as the Civil Service Commissioners and myself are concerned we have to try to estimate what number of vacancies we can reasonably offer if we hold an examination. After all none of us can exactly foresee what sort of Civil Service will emerge from the war, and how many of the Departments now expanding will contract, and how many will disappear. One cannot go on the assumption that everything will necessarily be as it is. Whereas, let us say, we were having over 11,000 clerical candidates for some 3,800 appointments, I do not think in view of what may be required after the war that one could possibly offer that number if examinations were held during the war. Because of the difficulties of forecasting the possible needs of the Civil Service if we had the examinations I do not think they could be on that scale.
The right hon. Gentleman made some suggestions and all that he has said will cause me to have one further review of this question. He suggested that in some grades it might be possible to have an examination not for the usual number of candidates, but for a modified number of women candidates. That at first sight sounds an interesting suggestion, but I am not at all sure that when it was made any Lady Members of the House were present. I am not at all sure that the suggestion does not cut very much against the case they are so frequently putting forward, that they do not want preferential treatment for women but a fair field of competition, with equal opportunity for men and women. If you have a modified examination for women only, in war-time, I am not at all sure that I should not be bringing down upon my head the wrath of the hon. Member for

the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the deputation of women Members of Parliament who came to see me in regard to the Civil Service a short time ago.

Miss Rathbone: On behalf of my women colleagues I do not think this idea of a special examination for women candidates has ever been considered by us; therefore I do not think we should necessarily turn it down, although we should regard any suggestion of preferential treatment with suspicion.

Captain Crookshank: It may be worth considering, but I do not quite see on first sight how a figure of equality of field based on a proportionate sum from the past could be reached which would satisfy the ladies. It is a question which raises a very difficult problem. I repeat, however, that I am quite willing to review the question once again in the light of this Debate and the questions which have been asked. When hon. Gentlemen cheer I would assure them that this is no concession wrung from me. I willingly make it, and it is not even a new one. I have to keep in mind the interest of the Civil Service as a whole—I have been a civil servant in my time—it is a great Service and it must be recruited properly. It is important for us to see that it is recruited even in war-time if it can be done, and if not in war-time, as soon as possible afterwards, in the wisest and best possible manner. I recognise, however, that there must be thousands of parents who are anxiously wanting to know what is the outcome of this Debate and whether their sons and daughters will have, as the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) said, the chance to fail.
This question appeals, I think, to everybody in the House, but it is my duty to balance the advantage against the difficulties with which we are confronted. There is an overriding consideration when we have these Debates on such matters—important though they are they are only domestic problems—which sometimes we are apt to overlook, and that is that we are at war, and that all our plans may go astray at any moment. While I do not overstress either this or what I said about the practical difficulties in the beginning of my speech, I hope that hon. Members will do me the compliment of believing that I consider them of some importance when I have to weigh up these matters


with my advisers. The difficulties cannot be swept so easily aside by a responsible Minister as it may be possible for hon. Members to do on behalf of their constituents on a matter affecting a large number of families. I certainly will have a review made again, and if the resultant decision is found unfavourable I do not think it would prevent me from doing it again at a later stage. This is a matter, I think, which must be constantly reviewed. On the other hand it must be remembered that it may not be possible to do anything. With that I would thank the House for the indulgence they have shown me and I assure them that I sympathise with the points of view which hon. Members have put forward to-day.

Miss Rathbone: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told us at the beginning that one of the difficulties was the possibility of bombing. I really do not think that is very convincing to any of us. He has not mentioned the lower grade of the Civil Service, although he made a very strong case that a competitive examination is not a good way of filling technical posts such as economic warfare. He has given no reason against the competitive examination except that one reason, which does not convince any of us.

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to repeat myself, but so long as it is the policy of the Government to make plans in case of further evacuation, I do not accept the hon. Lady's view that there is nothing in the case I have made out about the possible dangers.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure the House will sympathise with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on two grounds: first, on the physical disability which prevented him sitting down even when he wanted to listen to interruptions; and, second, upon the great disadvantage of having to reply to what was practically the unanimous demand of the House. I gratefully recognise the closing sentences of his speech and I am sure that, knowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as we do, we may rest assured that this matter will be reviewed by him in the near future, and that, if he cannot then reach a favourable decision, as we hope, it will be reviewed from time to time as circumstances change. I hope that

he will not mind if I deal with one or two of the arguments that he adduced. He mentioned the difficulty about congregating people together. He ought not to forget that the candidates in the group with which we are mainly concerned are at the moment in schools, where in some cases they are compelled to attend, even in secondary schools under their school life undertaking, in numbers approximating to those that are likely to be gathered in any one place for these examinations. I hope, therefore, that he will bear in mind that they are running the risk now compulsorily, and that he only invites them to come, so that if they run the risk in response to his invitation they share the risk with him.
No matter what happens, I hope that the children who were due for examination this year will not lose their chances irretrievably. I suggest that if the examinations cannot be held now some effort should be made when they are resumed to see that these children in each year of life get an opportunity of sitting. I know that that presents another administrative difficulty, but, after all, it is an essential factor to a sound Civil Service that there shall be a proper spread of the persons serving in it over the various years of life so that we do not get the people in a particular established grade unduly recruited from certain years and not sufficiently recruited from other years. These posts are regarded as being of great value by the parents of the children, and they represent a very legitimate ambition. I suggest that we cannot have a true democracy unless the public service is filled in some way that assures that merit and nothing else is the basis. I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will believe me when I say that I am making no charge of corruption. I even go so far as to say that examination by itself is not an entirely satisfactory method of filling any post. I say that as one who spent a good deal of his earlier life in passing examinations. No satisfactory alternative has been found, but we do desire that these posts in the Civil Service should be above reproach and that the public should have confidence that in filling them the State is concerned with merit and nothing else.
I listened with some alarm to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman


said about the Civil Service after the war. I cannot imagine that in the difficult times that will follow the war, no matter when the war may end, it will be possible for most of the Departments that were in operation before the war to carry on with reduced staffs. I should have thought that it would have been a sound ground to assume that a substantial proportion of the ordinary number of candidates will be required in the groups that we are specially considering in any year in future that we may have to take into account. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to announce his first decision as soon as he can. That is only fair to the candidates who are now waiting. He must have been impressed by the unanimity of the speeches in the House to-night, and I want to urge him, if unfortunately his first decision is not in the affirmative, that he should review it at fairly short intervals. As he rightly said, everyone who is concerned with education desires to see the crammer eliminated from these examinations. One way of defeating him is to announce the examinations with fairly short notice because that does not give the crammer the opportunity of cramming his particular candidates. An examination announced at fairly short notice would fulfil all the requirements of those interested in education and would to some extent enable the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to feel that he was not having the results of his examinations spoilt by the crammers.
I can assure him that there are few education authorities in the country which do not have to deal in some form or another with the problem of equating papers worked in the trying circumstances that he suggested. Most local authorities have now found, where they have any large number of candidates, that infectious diseases and similar hindrances prevent certain children from taking the examination on the appointed day. They have to set a special paper, the marks of which have to be equated, and it all depends on the results whether the parents of the children who had scarlet fever or the other children who did not have it, think they have secured a benefit by that means. It is a difficulty that in the present circumstances the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to face, and I hope he will run the risk. After all,

if the trouble does not arise the original examination stands. I would urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to take too much notice of the lions he sees in the path and to remember that when the pilgrim went by the lions he found them chained and harmless. Most of the lions the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen to-night are on very short chains indeed.

Orders of the Day — MILK (PASTEURISATION).

7.58 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: In accordance with notice I desire to raise the question of the pasteurisation of certain grades of milk consumed in this country, and which, in their present form, are unfit for human consumption. The subject was raised in a Question which I addressed to the Minister of Health:
Whether, in view of the additional duties placed upon local authorities due to war conditions and the consequent danger that the supervision of milk supplies in the matter of the inspection of farm premises, storage and handling of milk and the collecting and testing of samples may be relaxed, he will take steps to secure the universal adoption of pasteurisation by the collection and treatment of all milk in central depots, or at least of non-designated milk, thereby eliminating the danger to consumers of diseases from this latter source?
The Minister replied:
No, Sir. I do not contemplate the introduction in present circumstances of the legislation which would be necessary to effect the object which the hon. Member has in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March; col. 549, Vol. 358.]
I think it is generally agreed in the medical world that non-designated milk has not been tuberculin-tested, is not free from deleterious matter and may, and in point of fact does, contain diseased organisms which may be communicated to consumers. Under proper conditions this milk should be rendered by treatment safe for human consumption. I was disappointed that the Minister gave so specific a reply, and I hope that to-night the Parliamentary Secretary may somewhat modify that refusal.

Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the hon. Member to say that the reply of the Minister was that this matter would need legislation?

Mr. Adams: That was the reply.

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. Member cannot raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Adams: May I not deal with the subject generally, without asking for legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. If it needs legislation to do what the hon. Member desires it is quite out of Order for him to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eight o'Clock.